LIBRARY  OF  PRINCETON 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


COMPANION 


TO    THE 


BOOK   OF  GENESIS. 


BY  SAMUEL  H.  TURNER,  D.  D. 

PROF.  OF  BIB.  LIT.  AND  INTERP.  OF  SCRIP.  IN  THE  THEOL.  SEM.  OF 

THE  PROT.  EPIS.  CHURCH,    AND  OF  THE  HEBREW  LANG. 

AND  LIT.  IN  COLUM.  COLL.,  NEW-YORK. 


NEW-YORK  66  LONDON: 
WILEY   AND   PUTNAM, 

1841. 


Entered  according  to  an  Act  of  Cong^-ess,  in  the  year  1841,  by 

Wiley  &  Putnam, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District  of  New-York. 


J.  P.  Wright,  Primer,  18  New  Slrcel,  New  York. 


PREFACE. 


The  Author  of  the  following  work  does  not 
hesitate  to  acknowledge,  that  he  offers  it  to  the 
pubhc  with  some  solicitude.  Apart  from  any  per- 
sonal considerations,  which  it  would  be  affectation 
wholly  to  disclaim,  there  are  others  of  a  nature  en- 
tirely different  and  vastly  higher,  which  must  make 
a  strong  impression  on  every  writer  who  feels  him- 
self to  be  a  moral  and  responsible  agent.  To  com- 
ment on  the  sacred  Scriptures  is  to  interpret  what 
God  formerly  revealed  ;  and  therefore,  the  attempt 
should  be  made  with  due  seriousness  of  mind,  and 
suitable  intellectual  preparation.  The  expositor 
should  possess  a  competent  acquaintance  with  the 
principles  and  laws  of  interpretation,  and  also  with 
the  various  facts  which  bear,  either  directly  or  in- 
directly, on  the  points  to  be  illustrated.  He  should 
exercise  a  proper  care  and  judgment  in  selecting 
from  the  sources  of  information,  and  in  applying  his 
knowledge  to  the  obscurities  which  are  to  be  cleared 
up,  and  the  difficulties  which  are  to  be  removed. 
Whether  these  requisitions  shall  appear  to  be  met, 


IV  PREFACE. 


in  any  degree,  in  the  subsequent  pages,  must  be 
decided  by  the  candid  and  intelHgent  examiner. 

It  may  be  proper  to  inform  the  reader,  that  it  was 
not  my  intention  to  write  a  complete  commentary 
on  the  book  of  Genesis,  or,  in  any  sense,  a  prac- 
tical one.  He  need  not  therefore  be  surprised,  if 
many  things  are  here  passed  over  which  could  not 
properly  have  been  omitted  in  a  more  voluminous 
work,  composed  on  a  more  extensive  plan.  The 
book  now  submitted  to  his  inspection  is  intended  as 
a  companion  to  the  first  part  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Far  from  being  designed  to  lessen  the  importance 
or  supersede  the  use  of  the  inspired  record,  it  does 
but  accompany  it  as  a  servant  and  attendant.  It  is 
expected,  therefore,  that  the  reader  will  peruse  it, 
and  especially  the  Analysis,  with  the  sacred  volume 
open  before  him.  Those  who  are  acquainted  with 
the  original  Hebrew,  will,  of  course,  prefer  the 
fountain  head  of  the  truth.  Others  will  find  our 
admirable  and  generally  accurate  English  transla- 
tion among  the  very  best  and  purest  of  the  streams. 

In  tlie  preparation  both  of  the  Analysis  and  the 
Notes,  it  has  been  my  object  to  illustrate  the  book 
of  Genesis  by  a  constant  reference  to  the  original 
text,  to  other  portions  of  Sciipture,  and  to  the 
best  sources  and  aids  of  interpretation.  In  the 
hope,  that,  of  those  who  may  favor  this  volume  with 
their  attention,  a  considerable  number  will  be  com- 
petent to  examine  original  authorities  for  them- 
selves, it  appeared  to  be  due  to  that  class  of  readers, 


PREFACE. 


not  to  leave  them  without  the  means  of  determining 
on  the  correctness  of  the  Author's  representations. 
It  is  with  this  view,  that  I  have  occasionally  intro- 
duced the  authorities  appealed  to  in  their  original 
language.  It  is  hoped,  however,  that  this  will  not 
deter  the  merely  English  reader  from  giving  his 
attention  to  this  work,  as,  in  every  instance,  the 
original  passages  are  accompanied  by  a  translation, 
which,  if  not  always  literal,  is  yet  sufficiently  so  to 
put  him  in  possession  of  the  writer's  meaning.  He 
will  not  object,  because  to  one  class  of  readers  an 
advantage  is  afforded,  of  which  it  is  his  misfortune 
that  he  cannot  avail  himself. 

It  will  be  perceived  that  the  literal  sense  of  the 
words  is  adhered  to,  when  there  is  no  sufficient 
reason  for  adopting  a  figurative  meaning.  And 
when  a  passage  is  susceptible  of  more  expositions 
than  one,  I  have  thought  it  most  in  accordance  with 
that  candor  which  should  govern  the  expositor,  not 
to  limit  the  reader  to  that,  which  to  my  own  mind 
may  be  most  satisfactory:  being  well  assured  of 
this,  that  uniformity  of  opinion  respecting  the 
meannig  of  difficult  passages  of  Scripture  is  not 
to  be  expected,  both  on  account  of  the  nature  of 
the  grounds  whereon  such  passages  ought  to  be 
interpreted,  and  the  character  and  habits  of  the 
mind,  varying,  as  they  do,  in  consequence  of  dif- 
ferent natural  capacity,  and  also  from  the  influence 
of  education  and  incidental  circumstances.  If  the 
data  whereby  to  form  a  judgment  respecting  the 


VI  PREFACE. 


meaning  of  a  passage  have  not  appeared  sufficiently 
clear  or  complete  to  settle  the  true  and  necessary 
sense,  I  have  purposely  avoided  the  expression  of 
a  decided  opinion,  being  of  nothing  more  strongly 
persuaded  than  of  this,  that  an  affectation  of  know- 
ledge merely  displays  ignorance,  and  that  an  attempt 
to  shroud  in  mysteiy  what  is  clear,  or  to  explain 
what  is  to  us  unintelligible,  necessarily  tends  either 
to  superstition  or  infidelity. 


ERRATA. 


Page  15,  line   4  from  bottom, /or  In  read  in. 

—  C8,  —  11  from  bottom,  for  60  read  40. 

—  72,  —    7,  for  He  read  Ttie. 

—  83,  —    1,  for  xi.  read  ix. 
_  86,  —  18,  for  50  read  51. 

—  102,  —    7  from  bottom,  for  her  reac?  his. 

—  121,  —    6  from  bottom,  for  might  7'ead  dignity. 

—  131,  —    7  from  bottom,/oridolatriae  re(Zc?idoloIatrisB. 
_  380,  —    6,  for  ri^b^t?  read  rib^t^J. 

—  380,  —  19,  for  adapted,  read  adopted. 

—  385,  —  16,  for  scarcely,  read  scarcely. 


INTRODUCTION 


The  Book  of  Genesis  derives  its  name  from  the  history  of 
the  creation,  in  Greek  yivsdic.,  with  which  it  commences.  The 
Jews  designate  the  several  books  of  the  Pentateuch  by  the 
words  with  which  they  respectively  begin ;  this  book,  there- 
fore, is  known  by  the  name  Bereshith,  or  Bereshith  bara, 

Although  the  book  is  a  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  conse- 
quently not  in  all  respects  an  entire  work,  it  is  still  suffi- 
ciently complete  in  itself  to  admit  of  its  being  examined  in- 
dependently of  the  four  books  which  succeed  it.  It  may  be 
divided  generally  into  two  portions.  The  first,  chap,  i — xi.  26, 
contains  the  principal  events  from  the  creation  to  the  birth  of 
Abraham,  with  genealogical  lists  of  such  of  the  ancestors  of 
that  patriarch  as  had  preserved  a  due  regard  for  religion  and 
good  morals.  The  second  portion,  comprehending  the  re- 
mainder of  the  book,  furnishes  a  more  detailed  history  of 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  continuing  to  the  death  of  Jo- 
seph ;  and  in  this  portion  the  promises  made  to  the  patriarchs 
form  everywhere  the  most  conspicuous  object. 

After  an  account  of  the  creation,  of  the  original  state  of 
man,  and  of  the  fall,  the  first  portion  proceeds  to  relate  the 
increase  of  irreligion  and  immorality,  until,  about  the  year 
235,  (iv.  26 ;  v.  3,  6,)  the  true  worshippers  of  the  Deity  were 
distinguished  by  the  appellation  "  sons  of  God,"  whilst  those 
who  disregarded  the  divine  instructions  and  were  led  by 
merely  human  propensities,  were  called  children  "  of  men." 
2 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

Of  the  former  class  were  the  ancestors  of  Noah,  who  are 
consequently  here  introduced,  (chap,  v.)  although  the  gene- 
alogy, like  a  long  parenthesis,  interrupts  the  close  connexion 
between  iv.  26  and  vi.  1.  For  the  same  cause  the  extraor- 
dinary piety  of  Enoch  and  his  translation  are  mentioned  in 
V.  22  ss.  The  intermarriages  or  illicit  union  of  these  two 
classes  of  persons  produced  at  last  so  general  a  corruption 
of  religion  and  morals,  that  God  destroyed  by  a  flood  all 
living  creatures  except  Noah  and  his  family,  and  the  various 
animals  which  were  preserved  along  with  them  in  the  ark. 
On  account  of  the  importance  of  this  terrific  event,  it  is 
related  with  more  than  usual  particularity,  (vi.  9 — ix.  29.) 
This  is  followed  by  a  genealogical  and  geographical  ac- 
count of  settlements  made  in  the  world,  (chap,  x.)  and  then, 
(xi.  1 — 9,)  the  attempt  to  build  the  tower  of  Babel  is  related, 
which,  as  it  gave  rise  to  the  dispersion,  is  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  account  of  that  event.  The  posterity  of 
Shem,  with  whom  religion  and  morals  were  preserved  long- 
est and  in  the  greatest  purity,  are  then  introduced,  (xi.  26.) 
down  to  the  birth  of  Abraham. 

The  second  portion  of  the  book  contains  a  more  particu- 
lar account  of  facts  in  which  the  Israelites  were  interested. 
As  the  family  of  Terah  were  idolatrous,  (Josh.  xxiv.  2  ;  Gen. 
xxxi.  30,  XXXV.  2,)  Abraham  is  divinely  called  to  go  to  Ca- 
naan, where  a  numerous  posterity  is  promised  him,  and  the 
settlement  of  his  descendants  through  Isaac,  after  a  resi- 
dence of  four  hundred  years  in  a  foreign  land ;  and  also,  that 
in  his  posterity  "  all  nations  should  be  blessed,"  (xii.  2,  3 ; 
xiii.  14 — 17;  xv.  4,  5,  7,  13 — 18;  xvii.  4 — 8;  xviii.  18;  xxii_ 
17,  18 ;)  all  which  has  in  view  the  preservation  of  the  know- 
ledge of  God  and  true  religion,  together  with  the  coming  of 
a  spiritual  deliverer  to  bring  the  blessing  of  salvation  to  man- 
kind. These  promises,  which  are  repeated  to  Isaac,  (xxvi. 
1 — 5,)  and  to  Jacob,  (xxviii.  13 — 15,)  are  the  principal  point 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

on  which  every  thing  in  this  domestic  history  turns,  the  ac- 
count of  Joseph  not  excepted,  as  this  includes  the  descent 
of  Jacob's  family  into  Egypt,  where  they  became  exceedingly 
numerous.  Whatever  is  introduced  in  relation  to  other 
families  and  nations,  has  some  bearing  on  the  history  of 
these  patriarchs,  or  concerns  some  collateral  branches  of 
their  families.  See  chap.  xiv.  17  ss.;  xxv.  1 — 4,  12—16; 
xxxvi.* 

That  the  Pentateuch,  and  consequently  the  Book  of  Gene- 
sis as  a  constituent  part  of  it,  is  the  genuine  work  of  Moses, 
is  supported  by  the  tradition  of  the  whole  church,  both  Jew- 
ish and  Christian,  which,  with  unanimous  consent,  ascribe  it 
to  this  most  extraordinary  man,  whose  deeply  religious  cha- 
racter, natural  talents,  and  profound  and  extensive  learning, 
abundantly  qualified  him,  under  that  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  by  which  he  was  guided,  to  prepare  the  work,  and  to 
rule  over  the  people  of  God,  for  whose  use  it  was  originally 
designed.  In  the  earlier  ages  of  the  primitive  Christian 
church,  some  of  the  Gnosticks  and  certain  other  heretics  did 
indeed  oppose  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch ;  but  their 
efforts  were  directed  chiefly  against  the  divine  origin  of  the 
law  which  it  contained,  and  some  of  the  historical  narratives 
which  it  recounted,  which  appeared  to  them  unworthy  of 
the  Divine  Being.f  The  fathers  considered  the  Pentateuch 
as  the  original  work  of  Moses,  restored  through  inspiration 
by  Ezra,  after  its  loss  in  consequence  of  the  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity. The  notion  of  this  fabulous  restoration  originated 
with  the  Jews  themselves. 

The  suspicion  that  the  Pentateuch  contains  interpolations, 
may  also  be  traced  to  the  same  source.     Isaac  Ben  Jasus, 

*  Jahn's  Introduction,  Pail  II.  §  2. 

t  On  this  gjj)nnd  they  are  said  in  the  Clementines  to  be  false.  See 
Homily  II,  chapters  41—44,  52,  in  Le  Clerc's  edition  of  Cotelerius, 
Ant.  1700,  vol.  I.  p.  632,  634. 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

a  Spanish  Jew,*  in  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  century, 
suggested  the  idea  that  some  portions  of  the  Pentateuch 
were  composed  after  the  time  of  Moses.  The  36th  chapter 
of  Genesis,  for  instance,  he  ascribed  to  the  age  of  Jehosha- 
phat.  Aben  Ezra,  who  mentions  this  opinion  with  disap- 
probation, still  admits  that  some  interpolated  passages  occur. 
This  learned  writer  is  generally  considered  as  the  first  who 
opposed  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch.  Spinoza  appeals 
to  his  authority,  and  endeavours  thereby  to  support  his  own 
opinion,  that  the  Pentateuch  owes  its  present  form  to  the 
labours  of  Ezra.  Tract.  Theol.  Polit.  Cap.  8.  See  Hand- 
buch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testa- 
ment, by  H.  A.  Ch.  Haevernick,  Erlangen,  1836,  vol.  I. 
p.  634—636. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  mention  various  writers,  who,  in  some 
form  or  other,  have  denied  the  genuineness  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  consequently  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.  However 
great  may  have  been  the  influence  of  their  productions 
within  a  limited  time  and  space,  their  objections  have  always 
been  met  by  solid  answers,  and  the  genuineness  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch as  the  authentic  work  of  Moses  has  been  vindicated 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  candid  and  intelligent.  The  reader 
w}\\  find  a  masterly  discussion  of  this  subject  in  Jahn's  In- 
troduction, Part  II.  §  3 — 14.  And  in  defending  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  he  comprehends  also  of 
course  that  of  Genesis.  For,  as  he  remarks,f  '  the  events 
herein  related  are  alluded  to  in  the  time  of  Joshua  and  in  all 
the  following  ages,  as  well  known  equally  with  those  in  the 
remaining  books  ;  whence  it  may  justly  be  inferred,  that  Gen- 
esis, from  the  time  of  Joshua  downward,  having  been  com- 
prehended under  the  general  titles  of  the  Law,  the  Law  of 

*  See  Wolf's  Bibliotlieca  Hebrxa,  Tom.  I.  p.  339,  No.  15,  and 
p.  662,  No.  1208. 

t  P.  190,  191. 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

Jehovah,  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  the  Book  of  the  Law  of 
Moses,  was  attributed  to  Moses.  There  is  the  less  room  for 
doubting  this,  inasmuch  as  Genesis  and  the  first  chapters  of 
Exodus  form  a  necessary  introduction  to  what  follows,* 
and,  on  the  contrary,  in  the  remaining  books  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, there  are  frequent  references  to  the  events  narrated 
in  Genesis  and  the  first  chapters  of  Exodus  ;  so  that  both 
parts  are  closely  connected  in  such  a  manner  that  neither 
would  be  perfect  without  the  other.  The  Hebrews,  de- 
graded during  their  residence  in  Egypt  so  as  to  worship 
creatures,  and,  as  had  been  foreseen  by  Moses,  thencor 
forward  continually  prone  to  idolatry,  needed  the  instruction 
given  in  Genesis  and  the  former  part  of  Exodus,  respecting 
the  nature  of  the  deity  whom  they  at  Mount  Sinai  had  ac- 
knowledged as  their  king,  whose  laws  they  had  received, 
and  to  whom  they  proffered  their  reverence  and  gratitude 
for  his  mercies,  by  their  Sabbaths  and  solemn  feasts,  by 
their  sacrifices  and  first  fruits,  by  their  obedience  to  his 
laws,  and  by  all  their  acts  of  homage  and  worship.  If  they 
had  been  unacquainted  with  this  part  of  the  Pentateuch, 
they  must  have  been  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  Deity 
whom  they  professed  to  worship  ;  they  could  not  at  that 
remote  period  have  known  their  king  as  God  the  Creator 
and  Governor  of  the  Universe  ;  they  could  not  have  under- 
stood his  frequently  recurring  titles,  the  God  of  Abraham, 
of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob  ;  they  could  not  have  been  able  to 

*  The  connexion  of  Genesis  with  the  subsequent  books,  as  introductory 
to  their  contents,  and  in  some  measure  serving  as  an  explanation  and 
defence  of  the  proceedings  which  they  relate,  will  be  evident  upon  an 
inspection  of  the  following  passages,  all  of  whicli  contain  matter  either 
alluded  to  in  subsequent  books,  or  else  corresponding  with  some  particu- 
lars therein  developed.  Chap.  ii.  3;  ix.  1 — 17,  20 — 27;  xii.  1 — 3;  xiii. 
14—17;  XV.;  xvii. ;  xix.  30—38;  xxi.  1—20;  xxiv.  2—8;  xxv.  1—6, 
19 — 34;  xxvii. ;  xxviii. ;  xxxv.  9 — 15;  xxxvi.  6;  xlvi.  1 — 7;  xlviii. ; 
xlix.  1,  7—13. 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

ascertain  what  was  meant  by  the  frequent  references  to  the 
promises  made  to  the  patriarchs ;  and  they  must  have  been 
entirely  in  the  dark,  as  to  the  number  and  nature  of  those 
wonderful  works,  which  are  so  frequently  mentioned  in  the 
remaining  books  of  Moses.  On  all  these  subjects,  oral 
tradition  must,  by  the  general  lapse  into  idolatry,  have 
become  exceedingly  depraved,  if  not  totally  obliterated,  in 
the  course  of  ages.  The  same  writer,  therefore,  who,  in 
hjs  care  for  the  information  of  the  Hebrews  even  of  remote 
periods,  committed  the  Pentateuch  to  writing,  would  not 
have  left  instruction  so  necessary  for  that  people,  especially 
those  of  them  who  lived  in  later  ages,  as  that  contained  in 
the  book  of  Genesis  and  the  former  part  of  Exodus,  to  be 
supplied  by  oral  tradition  ;  neither  is  it  credible  that  he 
did.' 

But  if  the  book  of  Genesis  were  written  by  Moses,  agree- 
ably to  all  ancient  tradition  and  scriptural  reference, 
inasmuch  as  the  work  contains  narrations  of  events  which 
took  place  long  before  the  time  of  the  author,  the  question 
arises,  whence  did  he  obtain  his  information  ?  He  must  have 
derived  his  knowledge  of  the  facts  recorded  either  from 
immediate  divine  revelation,  or  from  oral  tradition,  or  from 
written  documents  or  other  monuments.  The  nature  of 
many  of  the  facts  and  the  minuteness  of  the  narration,  render  it 
quite  improbable  that  such  detailed  accounts  were  commu- 
nicated by  immediate  revelation.  That  all  his  knowledge 
should  have  been  derived  from  oral  tradition,  appears 
morally  impossible,  when  we  consider  the  great  number  of 
names,  of  ages,  of  dates,  and  of  minute  events,  which  are 
recorded.  It  remains,  then,  that  he  must  have  obtained 
some  information  from  written  documents,  coeval,  or  nearly 
so,  with  the  events  which  they  recorded,  and  composed  by 
persons  intimately  acquainted  with  the  subjects  to  which 
they  relate.      That   these    were  few   in    number,  appears 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

probable  from  the  simple  and  uncultivated  habits  and  the 
humble  occupations  of  the  Hebrews  previously  to  their  re- 
moval to  Egypt,  and  from  their  oppressed  and  degraded 
state  while  there,  all  of  which  are  unfavourable  alike  to 
literary  pursuits  and  historical  research.  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  the  history  given  by  Moses  in  Genesis  is 
derived  principally  from  short  memoranda  and  genea- 
logical tables  written  by  the  patriarchs,  or  under  their 
superintendence,  and  preserved  by  their  posterity  until  the 
time  of  Moses,  who  made  use  of  them,  with  additions  from 
authentic  tradition  or  existing  monuments,  under  the  gui- 
dance of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  thus  prepared  his  work. 
Indeed,  it  is- not  improbable  that  the  Hebrew  legislator  intro- 
duced some  patriarchal  narrations  into  his  book  with  little 
or  no  alteration.  The  existence  of  written  documents 
anterior  to  the  time  of  Moses  is  unquestionable.*  The  au- 
thority of  the  book  of  Job,  (xix.  23, 24,)  and  the  late  Egyptian 
disclosures,  place  this  beyond  a  doubt.  And  it  is  difficult  to 
think  that  documents  were  not  used  in  preparing  such  nar- 
ratives as  that  of  Joseph,  and  some  parts  of  the  history  of 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.  It  is  remarked  by  Ewald,  in 
his  work  on   the    composition   of  Genesis,  respecting   the 

*  The  subject  of  the  early  use  of  writing  in  reference  to  its  bearing  on 
the  antiquity  and  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  is  carefully  investigated 
by  Dr.  E.  W.  Hengstenberg,  in  his  work  on  the  authenticity  of  the 
Pentateuch  (Die  Authentie  des  Pentateuches,)  vol.  I.  p.  415-502, 
Berlin,  1836.  As  I  shall  hereafter  refer  to  this  work,  it  may  be  well  to 
state,  that  it  is  the  second  part  of  the  author's  contributions  towards  an 
introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  of  which  his  work  on  the  Authenticity 
of  Daniel  and  the  Integrity  of  Zechariah  constitute  the  first,  and  was 
published  at  Berlin,  1831.  His  Christology  of  the  Old  Testament  has 
been  translated  by  Professor  Keith  of  Alexandria,  and  was  published  In 
three  8vo.  volumes,  the  first  at  Alexandria,  D.  C.  in  1836,  and  the 
remaining  two  at  Washington,  D.  C.  in  1839.  This  work  ought  to  be 
in  the  hands  of  every  student  of  theology. 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

narrative  of  the  flood,*  that,  although  indeed  it  might  have 
been  abbreviated  and  some  collateral  circumstances  omitted, 
yet  the  writer  evidently  intends  to  show  the  divine  agency 
even  in  the  details,  that  he  is  under  the  influence  of  strong 
feeling,  and  describes  the  tragic  event  with  minuteness  and 
particularity,  as  if  he  had  himself  been  an  eye-witness. 
This  is,  as  he  adds,  strikingly  characteristic  of  Hebrew 
history,  and  is  by  no  means  confined  to  the  account  of  the 
flood,  but  pervades  the  whole  book  of  Genesis.  The  artist 
draws  from  the  life,  and  delineates  the  vivid  scene  with  all 
the  freshness  of  nature  and  reality.  It  is  not  to  be  ques- 
tioned, that  this  might  be  done  by  a  writer  who  lived  long 
after  the  facts  related  ;  but  the  opinion,  that  Moses  employed 
certain  patriarchal  accounts  composed  by  some  one  who 
had  himself  beheld  the  scene  related,  or  else  had  heard  it 
from  an  eye-witness,  is  probable,  to  say  the  least.  On  such 
a  theory,  the  credibility,  historic  accuracy,  and  inspired 
authority  of  the  book,  derive  additional  strength:  for  the 
original  author  becomes  an  eye-Matness,  or  either  contempo^ 
raneous  or  nearly  so  with  the  facts  related ;  and  some  of 
the  facts  are  of  such  a  nature  that  they  could  have  been 
derived  only  from  immediate  revelation ;  and  the  whole 
being  compiled  by  an  inspired  writer,  have  received  the 
sanction  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  an  equal  degree  with  his 
original  productions. | 

*  Die  Komposition  der  Genesis  kritisch  untersucht,  von  Dr.  H.  A. 
EwALD.     Braunschweig,  1823,  p.  85. 

f  The  reader  will  perhaps  observe  a  striking  verbal  correspondence 
between  some  portions  of  this  paragraph  and  parts  of  pages  xxxiii  and 
xxxiv  of  Professor  Bush's  Introduction  to  his  Notes  on  the  Book  of 
Genesis.  As  I  do  not  wish  it  to  be  supposed  that  I  would  quote  the 
Professor's  language  without  the  ordinary  marks  of  acknowledgment,  I 
think  proper  to  state  tliat  the  corresponding  portions  were  written  by 
me,  and  published  as  notes  to  Jahn's  Introduction,  translated  by  Pro- 
fessor Whittingham  and  myself.  See  p.  204,  205.  The  notes  of  Mr. 
Bush  were  published  in  1839,  Jalin's  Introduction  in  1827. 


INTRODUCTION'.  17 

The  book  of  Genesis  then  appears  as  the  work  of  Moses, 
in  preparing  which,  he  was  assisted  by  divine  inspiration, 
suggesting  what  could  not  otherwise  be  known ;  by  docu- 
ments previously  written  ;  by  standing  monuments  raised 
to  commemorate  historical  or  domestic  facts ;  and  by  oral 
tradition  handed  down  from  early  ages.  On  this  last  men- 
tioned mode  of  conveying  truth,  the  more  reliance  will  be 
placed  in  proportion  as  we  rightly  consider  the  longevity  of 
human  life  at  the  period  in  question,  the  vast  importance  of 
the  topics  transmitted,  and  the  deep  interest  felt  in  their  pre- 
servation. 

The  theory  of  pre-exi stent  documents  was  first  cautiously 
advanced  by  Vitringa,  who  speaks  of  "  scrolls  and  docu- 
ments of  the  patriarchs  preserved  among  the  Israelites,  and 
collected,  digested,  and  arranged  by  Moses,  and  filled  up 
wherein  they  were  defective."*  It  was  soon  after  proposed 
again  by  Le  CeneI ,  and  to  a  moderate  extent,  adopted  by 
Calmet,J  and  Bishop  Gleig.§  Astruc  was  the  first  who 
attempted  to  mark  out  the  various  documents  of  which  the 
book  of  Genesis  consists.  In  his  work  on  this  subject,||  he 
supposed  them  to  be  twelve  in  number.     He  contended  also 

*  "Has  vero  schedas  et  scrinia  patrum,  apud  Israelitas  conservata, 
Mosem  opinamur  collegisse,  digessisse,  ornasse,  et  ubi  deficiebant 
complesse,  atque  ex  iis  primum  libroruni  suorum  confecisse."  Obser- 
vationes  Sacree,  Lib.  1.  cap.  iv.  §  2,  p.  36  ss.  Ed.  Francq.  1712. 

f  Bible  de  Le  Cene,  Tom.  I.  p.  ix.  Col.  2,  and  p.  x.  Col.  1  and  2, 
which,  however,  was  not  printed  until  1741.  See  an  able  dissertation 
in  La  Bible  de  Vence,  Tom.  I.  p.  266  ss.  ed.  2. 

X  Commentaire  Litterale,  Tom.  I.  P.  I.  p.  xiii. 

§  Introduction  to  Stackhouse's  History  of  the  Bible.  See  also 
Home's  Introduction,  vol.  I.  p.  54,  55,  6th  edition.  A  list  of  writers  by 
whom  this  opinion  has  been  supported  may  be  seen,  with  accurate 
references,  in  Holden  on  the  Fall,  chap.  II.  p.  32,  33. 

II   Conjectures  sur  les  memoires  originaux  dont  il  paroit  que  Moyse 
s'est  servi  pour  composer  le  livre  de  Genese.     Paris,  1753,  8vo. 
3 


18  INTRODUCTION. 

that  the  first  chapters  of  Exodus  were  Ukewise  derived 
from  them.  This,  however,  no  judicious  person  will  allow. 
EicHHORN,  in  his  Introduction,*  modified  this  hypothesis  so  as 
to  limit  the  number  of  primitive  documents  to  two,  the  one 
remarkable  for  using  the  term  Jehovah  as  the  name  of  God, 
while  the  other  employs  Elohim.  Whatever  is  not  derived 
from  these  two,  he  considers  as  original  with  the  author. 
IlgenI  makes  the  distinction  of  three  documents,  two  of 
which  employ  the  word  Elohim,  and  the  other  Jehovah ; 
one  of  the  former  approximating  both  in  language  and 
character  to  the  latter.  These  hypotheses  are  all  ingenious- 
ly devised,  but  not  one  of  them  has  received  universal  ap- 
probation. Each  system  rests  upon  far-fetched  and  arbi- 
trary assumptions,  and  supposes  the  collector  of  the  docu- 
ments to  resemble  its  framer  in  views  and  dispositions. 
Other  theories  of  the  same  sort  might  be  contrived,  and,  in 
fact,  a  new  one  was  proposed  by  Kelle,J  in  1811-12,  and 
yet  none  will  be  universally  acceptable  ;  and  after  all,  if  any 
one  were  capable  of  being  established  by  more  ingenious 
arguments  than  all  the  rest,  the  only  advantage  to  be  derived 
would  be,  that  then  the  documents  employed  in  preparing  the 
book  of  Genesis  might  be  enumerated,§  But  such  a  designa- 
tion of  original  documents  incorporated  into  the  book  cannot 

*  Einleitung  ins  A.  T.  Theil  II.  §  416-427. 

f  In  his  Urkunden  des  Jerusalemischen  Tempelarchivs,  1798. 

t  In  his  Vorurtheilsfreye  Wiirdigung  der  Mosaischen  Schriften. 
The  author  afterwards  retracted  his  views,  in  his  work  entitled,  Die 
heiligen  Scliriften  in  ihrer  Urgestalt,  Deutsch  und  mit  neuen  An- 
merkungen,  von  K.  G.  Kelle,  Freyberg,  1817,  where  he  maintains 
that  Genesis  consists  of  a  single  genuine  work  of  Moses,  much  interpo- 
lated by  the  priests  of  the  race  of  Ithamar,  and  takes  great  pains  to 
separate  the  supposed  interpolations  from  the  original  work.  A  refu- 
tation of  his  hypothesis  may  be  seen  in  Kosenmueller's  Scholia, 
p.  52  8s. 

§  Jalin,  p.  204,  205. 


INTRODUCTION.  19 

be  made.  Even  Rosenmiiller  maintains  the  impossibility  of 
pointing  out  any  certain  distinction  between  the  several  doc- 
uments of  which  the  book  of  Genesis  is  composed.  This 
assertion  he  maintains  at  some  length,  examining  the  different 
criteria,  showing  their  want  of  certainty,  and  proving  the 
futility  of  all  attempts  to  discover,  after  a  lapse  of  3,000 
years,  the  precise  nature  and  extent  of  the  records  used  by 
Moses  in  the  preparation  of  his  work. 

Before  the  authorship  of  the  book  of  Genesis  became  a 
subject  of  discussion,  numerous  interpolations  were  supposed 
to  be  found  in  it ;  and  this  opinion  was  maintained  by  some 
writers  of  distinction,  both  Jewish  and  Christian.  After- 
wards the  hypothesis  of  documents  was  advanced  ;  and 
some  of  its  advocates,  not  content  with  admitting  the  fact 
that  Moses  did  really  employ  such  written  sources  of  his- 
torical truth,  undertook  to  ascertain  their  number,  to  de- 
termine their  commencing  and  terminating  points,  to  settle 
their  character,  and  to  pass  judgment  on  their  style,  demon- 
strating that  Moses,  the  learned  and  gifted  Hebrew  legisla- 
tor, could  not  so  have  written.  The  theory  of  documents 
prepared  the  way  for  that  of  fragments.*  Phenomena  on 
which  that  theory  was  supposed  to  be  founded,  appeared,  it 
was  thought,  in  many  smaller  sections,  even  of  the  supposed 
documents,  and  the  book  of  Genesis  was  subdivided  into  a 
multitude  of  portions,  the  larger  were  reduced  to  smaller, 
connected  parts  to  disjointed  fragments.  It  would  be  useless 
to  mention,  and  very  idle  to  examine,  all  the  alleged  reasons 
for  such  a  procedure.  But  the  principal  allegations,  on  the 
ground  of  which  the  book  of  Genesis  has  been  said  to  con- 
sist of  independent  documents  and  disconnected  fragments, 

*  The  fragmentary  character  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  and  particular- 
ly of  the  former  part  of  it,  is  maintained  even  by  Herder  in  his 
third  letter  on  the  study  of  Theology,  Briefe  das  Studium  der  Theologie 
betrefFend ;  Collected  Works,  Stutgard  and  Tubingen,  vol.  xiii.  p.  41,  42. 


20  INTRODUCTION. 

must  not  be  passed  over  without  some  notice.  If  the  reader 
wishes  any  fuller  discussion  than  what  the  following  briei 
remarks  afford,  he  will  find  a  very  able  examination  of  the 
alleged  difficulties  in  the  work  of  Ewald,  before  referred 
to.  Havernick,  in  his  Introduction,  Part  I.  §  112,  has 
made  use  of  this  acute  and  learned  writer's  labours. 

1.  The  inscriptions  are  thought  to  indicate  diffei*ent  docu- 
ments or  fragments. 

But  one  writer  may  well  be  supposed  to  prefix  suitable 
inscriptions  to  the  respective  narratives,  as  they  are  related 
by  him.  Indeed,  the  use  of  iTlll  JiTl,  occurring  principally 
in  Genesis,  and,  derived  from  this  source  perhaps,  appear- 
ing in  a  few  other  books,  rather  agrees  with  the  opinion  of 
one  author  than  several.  I  mean  that  the  balance  of  proba- 
bilities is  in  favour  of  this  view,  rather  than  of  the  contrary. 
Certainty,  in  such  matters,  is  not  indeed  to  be  expected ; 
but  any  one  who  considers  how  natural  it  would  be  for  an 
author  to  bring  forward  the  subdivisions  of  his  work  with 
introductions  suited  to  the  particular  topics  of  such  subdivi- 
sions, will  hardly  find  in  these  inscriptions  much  evidence  of 
different  documents.  To  show  the  usage  of  the  orientals 
on  this  subject  of  inscriptions,  I  refer  the  reader  to  Ewald's 
work,  p.  133,  ss. 

2.  The  isolated  character  of  the  parts  is  appealed  to  in 
support  of  the  same  theory.  These  are  said  to  want  con- 
nexion, and  that  harmony  in  the  manner  of  representation 
which  characterizes  a  single  author. 

If  by  this  nothing  more  is  meant  than  that  several  of  the 
narrations  which  the  book  contains  are  introduced  some- 
what abruptly,  and  without  much  effort  to  prepare  the 
reader's  mind,  it  may  be  granted.  And  this  accords  with 
the  ordinary  manner  of  eastern  writing,  and  harmonizes 
with  the  usual  narrative  style  of  Scripture  ;  and  it  might  be 
expected  to  characterize  a  work  of  so  high  antiquity  as  the 


INTRODUCTION.  21 

book  of  Genesis.  Introductions  of  historical  events  by  re- 
marks of  a  somewhat  general  natm-e,  which  gradually  lead 
the  reader's  mind  from  preceding  to  subsequent  accounts 
by  observations  founded  on  a  philosophical  view  of  things, 
belonged  neither  to  the  age  nor  the  country,  and  therefore  it 
would  be  unreasonable  to  expect  them. 

3.  The  repetitions  with  which  it  is  said  the  book  abounds, 
is  thought  to  prove  its  fragmentary  character. 

As  repetitions  in  language  are  frequent  in  ancient,  orien- 
tal, and  Hebrew  writings,  so  also  are  repetitions  of  subject. 
The  speaker  pours  out  the  theme,  with  which  his  soul  is  full, 
in  repeated  bursts  of  feeling  or  exhibitions  of  fact.  And  not 
only  the  speaker,  the  principal  agent,  the  magna  pars  in  the 
transaction,  but  the  author  also  who  relates  the  facts,  parti- 
cipates in  the  same  emotions,  and  stamps  them  on  his  work. 
Thus  it  becomes  the  impress  both  of  the  authors  and  the 
agent's  mind,  and  its  repetitions  only  show  its  admirable 
conformity  to  nature.  This  characteristic  of  Hebrew  his- 
tory is  by  no  means  inconsistent  with  its  well-known  brevity. 
In  general,  its  statements  are  short  and  compressed.  The 
author  directs  his  eye  to  his  ultimate  object,  frequently  pass- 
ing over  the  intermediate  portions,  which  he  afterwards  il- 
lustrates and  amphfies.  Thus,  as  might  be  expected,  repeti- 
tions would  arise,  the  natural  result  of  an  endeavour  to  fill 
up  and  complete  the  representation. 

Repetitions  occur,  when  the  author,  having  thrown  into 
the  general  narrative  an  account  of  some  particular  circum- 
stance, wishes  to  mark  its  prominency  above  the  rest,  and 
therefore  introduces  a  brief  notice  of  this  point,  to  which  he 
attaches  especial  importance.  The  reader  cannot  fail  to 
observe  several  such  places  iii  Genesis,  as  also  in  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  such  repetitions  might  be 
expected  from  one  and  the  same  author  writing  a  continu- 
ous account,  and  are  certainly  no  indications  of  a  fragment- 


22  INTRODUCTION. 

ary  character  of  his  work.  So  also  in  passing  over  from 
one  circumstance  to  another,  it  is  not  uncommon  to  repeat 
the  conclusion  of  the  preceding  account.  Thus  the  antece- 
dent narrative  is  connected  with  the  subsequent.  Some- 
times indeed  a  considerable  part  of  what  has  already  been 
related  is  again  introduced, — it  may  be  in  language  some- 
what different, — in  order  to  prepare  the  way  for  some  new 
and  perhaps  striking  circumstance,  to  the  connexion  of  which 
with  the  account  repeated,  the  author  would  particularly  di- 
rect the  attention  of  his  reader.  Or  the  repetition  may  be 
intended  to  recall  to  the  reader's  mind  what  had  been  before 
stated,  the  thread  of  the  narrative  having  been  broken  off 
by  certain  intervening  accounts. 

For  these  and  other  causes,  which  will  probably  suggest 
themselves,  repetitions,  sometimes  verbal  and  sometimes 
merely  in  substance,  appear  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  But, 
as  Ewald  has  shown  by  a  full  induction  of  particulars,  they 
appear  also  in  an  equal  degree  in  other  historical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  not  unfrequently  in  other  oriental 
histories.  Verbal  repetitions  occur  also  in  the  works  of 
Homer.  The  inference  therefore  which  has  been  so  hastily 
and  confidently  drawn,  that  the  book  consists  of  various 
independent  fragments  or  documents,  is  entirely  unsupported 
by  the  facts. 

4.  It  is  said  that  different  accounts  of  one  and  the  same 
fact  are  found  in  the  work.  A  publication,  which,  without 
unity  of  plan,  is  made  up  of  fragments  of  several  authors  not 
contemporaneous,  might  be  expected  lo  contain  narrations, 
which,  in  particular  circumstances,  or  in  the  disposition  or 
design  of  the  whole,  are  contradictory.  Such  phenomena 
are  alleged  to  occur  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  But  this  as- 
sertion has  never  been  supported  by  sufficient  evidence. 
That  different  etymological  meanings  of  the  same  name  are 
suggested,  as  in  the  cases  of  Noah,  Esau,  Reuben,  Zebulon, 


INTRODUCTION.  23 

Joseph,  and  others,  cannot  be  proved.  The  idea  that  such 
phenomena  indicate  various  v^riters  is  a  mere  fiction.  The 
plain  solution  is  this  :  the  one  author  employs  the  paronoma- 
sia, so  favorite  a  figure  Mrith  the  Hebrevs^s ;  he  uses  a  term 
which  corresponds  in  sound  with  that  already  employed,  and 
which  conveys  an  idea  in  harmony  with  its  meaning,  or  with 
the  circumstances  of  the  occasion.  Neither  has  it  been 
proved  that  different  narratives  of  the  same  fact  are  to  be 
found  in  the  book.  The  relation  in  the  second  chapter  is  not, 
as  has  often  been  said,  an  account  independent  of  that  con- 
tained in  the  first.  New  matter  is  introduced,  preparatory 
to  which  a  portion  of  what  had  been  stated  in  the  first  is 
repeated  in  different  language.  Abraham's  twofold  denial 
of  his  wife,  and  the  similar  narrative  of  Isaac,  may  indeed 
excite  our  surprise ;  but  they  afford  no  proof  of  a  repetition 
of  the  same  identical  fact.  In  this,  as  in  most,  if  not  all  of 
the  other  alleged  points  of  evidence,  the  identity  of  the  ac- 
counts has  been  taken  for  granted,  and  of  course  the  theory 
to  be  proved  has  been  assumed.  This  may  be  produced  as 
one  among  many  illustrations  of  the  logical  character  of  that 
species  of  criticism  for  which  our  own  age  is  distinguished. 
It  is  easier  to  appeal  to  some  internal  feeling  beyond  the  un- 
derstanding, than  to  establish  plain  declarations  on  palpable 
evidence. 

The  unity  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  and  of  its  author,  is 
shown  from  the  uniform  and  steady  progress  of  the  narra- 
tive, from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  each  part  of  the  history 
following  very  naturally  that  which  immediately  precedes. 
They  follow  either  as  parts  of  the  history  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  its  perfection,  or  else  as  collateral  accounts,  interest- 
ing to  those  for  whom  the  book  was  originally  intended,  and 
illustrative  of  its  more  prominent  portions.  If  the  book  be 
one  connected  history,  and  not  disjointed  fragments,  it  can- 
not have  been  merely  arranged  in  chronological  order  from 


24  li\TRODUCTION. 

previously  existing  accounts,  by  some  compiler,  who  col- 
lected the  documents  into  one  whole,  without  making  any 
alteration  in  the  distinct  narrations.  The  undoubted  marks 
of  unity,  both  of  plan  and  object,  which  the  book  exhibits,  are 
inconsistent  with  this  theory ;  unless  indeed  it  be  limited  by 
very  important  modifications.  It  is  evidently  the  intention 
of  the  whole  book,  with  the  exception  of  those  introductory 
portions  which  precede  the  history  of  Abraham,  to  give  an 
account  of  the  people  of  God,  from  their  origin  to  their  set- 
tlement in  Egypt.  In  doing  this,  the  writer,  in  the  progress 
of  his  work,  continually  alludes  to  what  had  been  before 
stated,  sometimes  in  similar  and  sometimes  in  the  very  same 
language ;  and  this  language  in  several  instances  is  peculiar 
to  the  book,  and  in  others  evidently  original  in  it.  Doubtless, 
as  I  have  before  said,  he  availed  himself  of  documents  and 
other  sources  of  information  previously  existing,  and,  agree- 
ably to  Hebrew  usage,  he  retained  the  very  phraseology  of 
these  documents  so  far  as  was  consistent  with  his  one  ob- 
ject ;  but,  in  doing  this,  he  adapted  these  sources  of  informa- 
tion to  his  purpose,  modifying  their  language  as  the  necessity 
of  the  case  might  require.  In  this  respect,  the  work  is  anal- 
ogous in  some  measure  to  the  books  of  Samuel  and  of 
Kings. 

5.  I  come  now  to  consider  another  supposed  indication  of 
the  documentary  or  fragmentary  character  of  the  book  of 
Genesis,  the  use  of  the  divine  names,  to  which  not  a  few 
writers  have  appealed  with  unbounded  confidence.  For 
this  reason,  and  an  account  of  the  interest  and  importance 
of  the  subject,  the  reader  will  bear  with  me,  if  I  should  be 
more  difflise  than  heretofore.  The  subject  is  important,  and 
deserves  careful  consideration. 

It  is  hardly  possible  to  read  the  book  of  Genesis  atten- 
tively without  observing  that  the  Deity  is  therein  designated 
by  different  names,  and  that  these  names  are  used  in  a  very 


INTRODUCTION.  25 

remarkable  manner.  Sometimes  the  term  God  (Elohim,) 
occurs,  sometimes  Lord,  (Jehovah,)  and  sometimes  both  are 
united.  In  i.  1 — ii.  3,  God  is  invariably  used  ;  in  ii.  4 — iii.  24, 
Lord  God,  except  in  iii.  1,  3,  5,  where  the  speaker  is  a  dif- 
ferent person  from  the  author ;  in  iv.  except  v.  25,  where 
Eve  is  introduced  speaking,  Lord  alone.  The  facts  in  rela- 
tion to  this  point,  which  a  careful  perusal  of  the  whole  book 
exhibits,  plainly  show,  that  these  terms  are  frequently  em- 
ployed in  such  a  manner  as  could  not  have  been  the  result 
of  chance,  or  of  a  mere  intention  to  relieve  the  mind  of  the 
reader  by  an  agreeable  variety.  To  ascertain  the  ground 
on  which  the  sacred  writer  has  ordinarily  employed  one  or 
other  of  these  words  in  denoting  the  Supreme  Being,  is  there- 
fore an  inquiry  of  no  little  interest,  and  in  its  connexions  and 
results  it  is  one  of  great  importance. 

The  following  table,  which  shows  the  usage  throughout 
the  book  of  Genesis,  will  enable  the  reader  to  form  some 
judgment  on  the  question,  whether  the  use  of  these  terms 
is  incidental,  or  has  a  view  to  any  particular  design.  It  is 
founded  on  tables  given  by  Drechsler,  p.  5 — 7,  in  his  work 
on  the  unity  and  genuineness  of  Genesis.*  He  continues  the 
list  to  Exodus  xxiv.  inclusive,  and  gives  others,  showing  the 
usage  in  Judges  and  2  Samuel,  (p.  3 — 5,)  from  which  it  ap- 

*  Die  Einheit  und  Aechtheit  der  Genesis,  von  Dr.  Moritz  Drechs- 
ler; Hamburg,  1838,  8vo.  This  volume  has  an  intimate  connexion 
with  another,  published  by  the  author  in  the  preceding  year,  in  which  he 
attacks  the  literary  character  of  certain  late  writers  in  the  province  of 
Old  Testament  criticism,  particularly  Von  Bohlen  and  Vatke.  It  is 
entitled  "  Die  Unwissenschaftlichkeit  im  Gebiete  der  Alttestament- 
lichen  Kritik,  belegt  aus  den  Schriften  neuerer  Kritiker,  besonders  der 
Herren  Von  Bohlen  und  Vatke."  Some  notice  of  this  book  may  be 
seen  in  the  New  York  Review,  No.  Ill,  January,  1838. — Drechsler 
remarks  that  the  list  of  places  in  which  the  divine  names  occur  as  given 
by  Ewald,  in  his  work  on  the  composition  of  Genesis,  is  not  altogether 
to  be  relied  on.  Some  inaccuracies  and  omissions  in  his  own  I  have 
corrected  and  supplied  in  the  following  table. 
4 


26 


INTRODUCTIOX. 


pears  that  the  Lord,  Hin'^.  is  much  the  most  frequently 
employed.  The  combined  term,  Lord  God,  which  Drechsler 
gives  in  the  same  columns  with  Lord  and  God,  is  here  sepa- 
rated from  both  the  others.  It  occurs  only  in  the  following 
texts:  Gen.  ii.  4,  5,  7,  8,  9,  15,  16,  18,  19,  21,  22;  iii.  1, 
8  twice,  9,  13,  14,  21,  22,  23  ;  ix.  26 ;  xv,  2,  8.  In  xxiv.  3, 
7,  12,  27,  and  42,  both  terms  do  indeed  appear,  but  only  one 
is  used  as  a  name  of  the  Deity,  the  other  being  connected 
with  what  follows,  as,  "the  Lord,  God  of  my  master  Abra- 
ham," as  in  xxvii.  20,  "the  Lord,  thy  God."  Comp.  xxviii. 
21.  All  these  places  belong  to  that  class  in  which  the  term 
Lord  is  employed.  With  the  exception  therefore  of  one 
place  in  the  9th  chapter  and  two  in  the  15th,  the  connected 
use  of  the  two  terms  is  confined  to  the  2d  and  3d  chapters. 


Lord,  nirr^ 


iv.  1,  3,  4,  6,  9,  13,  15  twice,  16,  26. 

V.  29. 

vi.  3,  5,*  6,  7,  8. 

vii.  1,  5,  16. 

viii.  20,  21  twice. 

X.  9. 

xi.  5,  6,  8,  9  twice. 

xii.  1,  4,  7  twice,  8  twice,  17. 

xiii.  4,  10  twice,  13,  14,  ]8. 

xiv.  22. 

XV.  1,  4,  6,  7,  18. 

xvi.  2,  5,  7,  9,  10,  11  twice,  13. 


God,  Q^nbiJj  or  bjs: 

i.  1,  2,  3,  4  twice,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9, 
10  twice,  11,  12,  14,  16,  17,  18, 
20,  21  twice,  22,  24,  25  twice, 
26,  27  twice,  28  twice,  29,  31. 

ii.  2,  3  twice. 

iii.  1,  3,  5. 

iv.  25. 

V.  1  twice,  22,  24  twice. 

vi.  2,  4,  9,  11,  12,  13,  22. 

vii.  9,  16, 

viii.  1  twice,  15. 

ix.  1,  6,  8,  12,  16,  17,  27. 


xiv.  18,  19,  20,  22. 
xvi.  13. 


*  Our  English  Translation  and  Cranmer's  Bible  have  "  God" ;  but  the 
original  is  Lord,   SlirT't  and  this  is  followed  in  the  Geneva  version. 


INTRODUCTION. 


27 


Lord,  nln^.  God,  Q^nbi?!  or  b&!! 

xvii.  1.  xvii.  1,  3,  9,  15,  18,  19,  22,  23. 

xviii.  1,13,  14,  17,  19  twice,  20,  22, 

26,  33. 
xix.  13  twice,  14,  16,  24  twice,  27.     xix.  29  twice. 


XX.  18. 

xxi.  1  twice,  33. 

xxii.  11,  14  twice,  15,  16. 


xxiv.  1,  3,  7,  12,  21,  26,  27  twice, 
31,  35,  40,  42,  44,  48  twice,  50, 
51,  52,  56. 

XXV.  21  twice,  22,  23. 

xxvi.  2,  12,  22,  24,  25,  28,  29. 

xxvii.  7,  20,  27. 

xxviii.  13  twice,  16,  21. 

xxix.  31,  32,  33,  35. 
XXX.  24,  27,  30. 

xxxi.  3,  49. 

xxxii.  10,  (Eng.  Tr.  9.) 


XX.  3,  6,  11,  13,  17  twice. 

xxi.  2,  4,  6,  12,  17  thrice,  19,  20, 

22,  23,  33. 
xxii.  1,  3,  8,  9,  12, 
xxiii.  6,  (prince  of  God;  Eng.  Tr. 

mighty  prince.) 


XXV.  11. 

xxvii.  28. 

xxviii.  3,  4,  12,  17,  19,  (house  of 
God;  Eng.  Tr.  Bethel,)  20,  22. 

XXX.  2,  6,  8,  (wrestlings  of  God,) 

17,  18,  20,  22  twice,  23. 
xxxi.  7,   9,  11,   13,   16  twice,   24, 

42,  50. 
xxxii.  2,  3,  29,  31,  (Eng.  Tr.  1,  2, 

28,  30.) 
xxxiii.  5,  10,  11,  20. 
xxxv.  1  twice,  3,  5,  7  twice,  9,  10, 

11  twice,  13,  15. 

xxxviii.  7  twice,  10. 

xxxix.    2,    3   twice,    5   twice,    21,     xxxix.  9. 

23  twice. 

xl.  8. 

xli.   16,  25,  28,  32  twice,  38,  39, 

51,  52. 

xlii.  18,  28. 

xliii.  14,  29. 

xliv.  16. 

xlv.  5,  7,  8.  9. 

xlvi.  2,  3. 

xlix.  18.  xlviii.  3,  9,  11,  15,  20,  21. 

xlix.  25. 

1.  19,  20,  24,  25. 


28  INTRODUCTION. 

It  is  presumed  that  no  one  can  carefully  examine  the 
usage  exhibited  in  this  table,  without  a  disposition  to  consi- 
der, whether  it  be  attributable  to  chance,  or  to  some  definite 
and  assignable  cause. 

In  assisting  the  reader  to  form  a  judgment  on  this  point,  I 
shall  freely  avail  myself  of  the  valuable  labours  of  Dbechs- 
LER  and  Hengstenberg,*  occasionally,  however,  suggesting 
doubts  of  the  certainty  of  the  results  to  which  they  have 
arrived.  For  the  history  of  the  subject  I  am  indebted 
entirely  to  the  last  mentioned  author. 

The  first  reference  to  the  different  use  of  the  divine  names 
in  Genesis  occurs  in  Tertullian,  in  his  treatise  against  Her- 
mogenes,  cap.  3,  Tom.  11.  p.  61,  edit.  Semler,  (p.  234,  edit. 
Rigalt.)  It  was  observed  also  by  Augustin,  de  Genesi  ad 
literam,  viii.  11.  edit.  Bened.  Tom.  III.  p.  176;  and  also  by 
Chrysostom,  in  his  14th  Homily  on  Genesis,  0pp.  Tom.  II. 
p.  119,  Franc,  (edit.  Paris.  1636,  p.  136;  edit.  Bened. 
Tom.  IV.  p.  108.)  The  two  former  writers  ascribe  the  dif- 
ference to  design,  but  fruitlessly  endeavour  to  account  for 
it  by  considering  the  meaning  of  xv^'ws,  or  dominus.  The 
latter  imagines  them  to  be  equivalent  in  meaning,  and  used 
indifferently. 

Among  the  Jewish  writers  of  the  middle  ages,  Rabbi 
Jehudah  Hallevi,!  of  the  12th  century,  the  author  of  the 
book  Cosri,  is  distinguished  for  the  striking  and  profound 
thoughts  which  he  developes  on  this  point. 

"  The  plural  form  of  the  word  Elohim,"  says  this  writer, 
"  is  illustrated  by  regarding  it  as  opposed  to  idolators,  who, 
personifying  the  powers  of  naturs,  apply  the  3ingular  to  each 
one,  and  the  plural  to  all  combinsd,  without  keeping  in  view 

*  The  treatise  of  Hengstenberg  may  be  found  in  his  book  before 
mcLtioned,  vol.  I.  p.  181 — 414.  It  is  entitled,  "the  divine  names  in  the 
Pentateuch,  die  Gottesnaraen  im  Pentateucho" 

t  R.  J.  the  Levite.     See  Wolf,  Tern.  IV.  p.  1022;  No.  25. 


INTRODUCTION-.  29 

a  higher  power  from  whom  they  all  proceed.     The  term 
Elohim  is  in  opposition  to  these.     It  is  consequently  the 
most  general  name  of  the  Deity,  designating  him  in  refe- 
rence to  the  fulness  of  his  powers,  without  respect  to  per- 
sonality, moral  properties,  or  any  particular  connexion  with 
men.      Hence  it  follows,  that  where  God  has  given  wit- 
ness of  himself  and  is  truly  known,  another  name  becomes 
connected  with   Elohim ;    and  this  is  the  name   Jehovah, 
which  belongs  to  the  covenant  people  to  whom  God  has  re- 
vealed himself.     The  former  term  is  general  and  common, 
the  latter  particular  and  proper.     The  one  is  unintelligible 
to  all  those  to  whom  the  development  of  the  Divine  Being 
which  it  bears  along  with  it  has  not  been  made  known ;  the 
other,  inasmuch  as  it  designates  God  according  as  he  is 
known  to  all  men,  is  therefore  generally  intelligible.     The 
name  Jehovah,  expressive  as  it  is  of  the  inward  nature  of 
the  Deity,  is  only  to  be  comprehended  where  this  glorious 
Being  has,  as  it  were,  gone  out  of  himself;  where  he  has 
opened  the  chambers  of  his  heart,  and  granted  a  look  within, 
so  that  instead  of  a  dark  indefinite  somewhat,  of  which 
nothing  more  is  known  or  can  be  predicated,  than  that  it  is 
mighty  and  excellent  beyond  all  other  things,  the  most  per- 
sonal among  all  that  are  personal,  the  most  clearly  marked 
among  all  that  are  marked,  comes  forward."    Far  more  cor- 
rectly and  with  deeper  penetration  than  those  who  in  mo- 
dern times  consider  the  term  Jehovah  as  designating  the 
national  God  of  the  Jews,  this  writer  understands  it  as  the 
appellation  of  God  as  reveahng  himself,  and  consequently 
carries  up  its  use  to  the  origin  of  revelation  itself,  and  there- 
fore to  the  very  beginning  of  the  human  race.     "  The  being 
who  revealed  himself  to  Adam,  was  designated  by  Adam 
himself  as  Jehovah."    It  was  in  a  much  later  period,  when  the 
Divine  Being  limited  his  revelations  to  Israel,  that  the  name 
became  peculiar  to  that  people.    "  The  meaning  implied  in 


30  INTRODUCTION. 

the  word  God,  (Q''rib5;<5,)  may  be  apprehended  by  a  pro- 
cess of  reasoning,  because  the  understanding  teaches  us  that 
the  world  has  a  ruler  and  director.  But  what  is  implied  in 
the  term  Jehovah,  (nllT],)  cannot  be  thus  apprehended, 
but  only  by  prophetic  vision,  by  which  the  man  becomes 
separated,  as  it  were,  from  his  own  species,  and  approxi- 
mates to  that  of  angels.  Another  spirit  enters  into  him ; 
preceding  doubts  of  his  heart  are  dissipated ;  and  his  soul  is 
filled  with  veneration  and  love  for  the  one  God,  and  rather 
than  abandon  them,  he  is  willing  to  lay  down  his  life."  Cosri, 
Buxtorf's  Translation,  p.  256,  ss. 

Maimonides,  in  his  More  Nevochim,  Part  I.  chap.  Ixi.  Ixii. 
Ixiii.,  in  the  edition  in  Hebrew,  printed  at  Berhn  in  1791,  4to, 
fol.  56—60,  (5-15,)  in  Buxtorf's  Translation,  p.  lOG— 115. 
and  Abarbanel,  as  cited  by  Buxtorf  in  his  Dissertation  de 
nominibus  Dei  Hebraicis,  p.  266,  §  39,  do  also  take  notice  of 
the  distinction  of  the  names  employed  to  designate  the  Deity, 
but  with  less  penetration  than  this  author. 

The  first  writer,  who  made  prominent  the  false  exposition 
of  the  distinction  in  question,  was  the  physician,  Astruc,  in 
his  work  before  mentioned.  Proceeding  on  the  supposition 
that  the  alternate  use  of  the  divine  names  is  not  founded  on 
any  internal  difference,  a  supposition  which  he  never  thought 
of  proving,  inasmuch  as  no  one  in  his  time  questioned  it,  and, 
moreover,  recognizing  the  truth,  that  such  use  could  not  be 
incidental,  he  attempted  to  explain  it  on  external  grounds. 
He  maintained  that  Moses  had  composed  the  book  of  Gene- 
sis from  various  writings ;  two  principal  documents,  distin- 
guished by  the  exclusive  use  of  Jehovah  and  Elohim,  and 
also  ten  particular  memoirs,  the  use  of  which,  however,  was 
limited  to  a  very  few  portions  of  Genesis. 

This  publication,  at  the  time  of  its  appearance,  attracted 
very  little  attention.  We  learn  this  from  the  reply  which 
was  made  to  it,  five  years  afterwards,  by  H.  Scharbau,  Vin- 


INTRODUCTION.  31 

dicias  Geneseos  contra  auctorem  anonymum  libri,  conjec- 
tures sur  le  Genese,  which  appeared  in  the  Miscellanea  Lu- 
becensia,  vol.  I.  Rost.  1758,  p.  39 — 106.  The  author  apolo- 
gizes at  length  for  having  employed  some  of  his  leisure  hours 
in  refuting  so  very  silly  a  system  of  conjectures,  by  appealing 
to  La  Croze,  who  condescended  to  write  against  Harduin's 
absurdities.  He  very  correctly  estimated  the  danger  in 
Astruc's  attempt,  who,  to  support  his  theory  respecting  the 
names,  made  great  use  of  the  unnecessary  repetitions,  the 
disorder  and  confusion,  and  the  contradictions,  which  the 
book  was  said  to  contain.  He  treated  the  doctor  as  an  ene- 
my of  revelation.  But  for  the  main  point,  for  the  correct 
exposition  of  the  facts,  on  the  erroneous  interpretation  of 
which  Astruc's  theory  was  based,  nothing  was  gained  by  the 
vindication. 

The  period  had  not  arrived  for  this  theory  to  make  im- 
pression, and  it  soon  appeared  to  be  buried  in  oblivion.  But 
the  times  changed ;  and  the  question,  how  an  hypothesis 
agreed  with  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  was  no 
longer  considered.  Hence  it  was,  that  when  Eichhorn,  in 
his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  again  advanced  and 
set  off  this  theory,  it  met  with  general  acquiescence,  and 
spread  with  extraordinary  rapidity,  so  that  few  German 
scholars  of  any  name  were  to  be  found  who  did  not 
embrace  it. 

It  would  be  tedious  to  enumerate  the  various  writers  who 
defended  this  hypothesis,  or  to  point  out  the  differences  be- 
tween Eichhorn,  who  maintained  the  theory  of  two  docu- 
ments, and  his  chief  follower,  Ilgen,  who  defended  that  of 
three,  and  the  various  modifications  introduced  by  others. 
These  points  have  been  already  sufficiently  noted  on  p. 
18.  I  proceed  to  take  notice  of  those  authors  who  opposed 
those  views. 

Hasse  deserves  here  to  be  honourably  mentioned,  inas- 


32  INTRODUCTION. 

much  as,  in  his  Entdeckungen  im  Felde  der  altesten  Erd- 
und  Menschengeschichte  Th.  2,  Halle,  1805,  he  attacks  the 
very  fundamental  principle  of  the  theory,  and  maintains,  that 
the  alternate  use  of  the  names  is  founded  on  an  internal  dif- 
ference in  the  idea.  But,  in  determining  the  meaning  of  the 
two  names,  his  procedure  is  so  arbitrary  and  strange,  that 
an  examination  of  his  views  would  be  labour  without 
profit.* 

Vater  did  not  meddle  with  the  groundwork  of  the  the- 
ory. In  opposing  the  hypothesis  of  documents,  he  took  care 
not  to  make  the  change  of  the  divine  names  useless  for  that 
of  fragments,  to  which  he  was  attached.  The  work  of 
Vater  referred  to,  is  his  Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch, 
Commentar  uber  den  Pentateuch.  In  Part  II.  p.  16,  he  ex- 
presses his  opinion,  that  "  the  author  of  the  fragment  of  Ex- 
odus," which  contains  vi.  3,  "  was  unacquainted  with  Gen- 
esis ;"  although,  as  Ewald  says,  in  his  work  already  noted, 
p.  9,  "the  representations  and  phraseology  of  the  place  are 
evidently  drawn  from  it."  To  use  the  language  of  this  wri- 
ter, "  this  is  to  cut  the  complicated  knot  with  the  sword  of 
violence."  The  theory  in  question  has  but  little  to  fear 
from  such  attacks  as  that  of  Vater. 

The  first  really  important  opposition  is  that  which  was 
made  by  Sack,  in  his  treatise  de  usu  nominum  Dei  U'lJlbfeil 
et  ili!l"l  in  libro  Geneseos,  in  the  Commentationes  ad  theolo- 
giam  historicam,  Bonn,  1821  ;  with  which  ought  to  be  com- 
pared the  remarks  in  the  same  writer's  Apologetik,  p.  157  ss. 

*  In  order  that  the  reader  may  know  that  this  remark  of  Hengstenberg 
is  not  made  without  good  reason,  it  may  be  well  to  state,  that  Hasse 
maintains  the  extraordinary  hypothesis,  that  the  book  of  Genesis  had  in 
view  the  recommendation  of  agriculture.  Jehovah  consequently  is  pro- 
perly the  god  of  agriculture,  and  therefore  favourable  to  agriculturists. 
Of  course,  he  is  so  to  the  Hebrews,  to  whom  he  would  show  himself 
as  the  only  God,  triumphing  over  all  others!  Such  irreverent  and 
unfounded  theoriea  are  certainly  unworthy  of  examination. 


INTRODUCTION.  33 

The  discussion,  so  far  as  regards  the  main  principle,  the 
determining  of  the  general  relation  between  Jehovah  and 
Elohim,  was  brought  back  again  by  him  to  the  point  at 
which  the  author  of  the  book  Cosri  had  left  it ;  and  further, 
the  attempt  was  made,  and  frequently  with  success,  to  ex- 
plain, in  particular  portions  of  Genesis,  the  use  of  the  two 
names  on  the  ground  of  their  fundamental  difference. 

A  second  more  important  attack  on  the  hypothesis  of 
documents  and  fragments  was  undertaken  by  Evvald,  in  his 
critical  examination  of  Genesis.  The  chief  value  of  this 
work  consists  in  the  ability  with  which  it  contends  against 
the  supposed  fragmentary  character  and  disorder  of  the 
composition,  its  inscriptions,  repetitions,  variety  of  language, 
and  seeming  contradictions.  In  showing  the  internal  con- 
nexion of  Genesis  and  the  mutual  relation  of  its  parts,  Ewald 
has  great  merit.  But  his  investigations  respecting  the  inter- 
change of  the  divine  names  are  exceedingly  defective,  and 
far  less  valuable  than  those  of  Sack.  He  considers  Elohim 
as  the  general  and  inferior  name  of  the  Deity,  Jehovah  as 
that  of  the  national  God  of  the  IsraeHtes.  This  view, 
which,  without  the  necessary  linguistic  proof,  is  drawn 
merely  from  an  induction  of  places  taken  from  later  his- 
torical books,  although  it  contains  some  truth,  is  unsatis- 
factory. 

After  mentioning  the  unimportant  productions  of  Gram- 
berg*  and  Staehelin,!  in  reference  to  the  theory  opposed  by 
Ewald,  Hengstenberg  takes  notice  of  Hartm ANN.  This  writer 
defends  the  fragmentary  theory,  but  attaches  very  little  im- 
portance to  the  interchange  of  the  names,  although,  indeed, 
he  acknowledges  a  real  difference  between  them.     He  gives 

*  Libri  Geneseos  secundum  fontes  rite  dignoscendos  adumbratio 
nova.  Leipz.  1828. 

f  Kritische  Untersuchungen  iiber  die  Genesis.  Basel.  V^2d. 

5 


34 


INTRODUCTION. 


the  result  of  his  inquiries  in  these  words :  "  When  an 
author,  without  evident,  definite  cause,  confines  himself  in 
a  long  section  to  the  use  of  one  name,  whether  it  be  Elohim 
or  Jehovah,  he  shows  a  certain  preference  for  it,  and  may 
therefore  be  regarded  as  a  different  writer  from  one  who, 
in  the  same  proportion,  proceeds  in  a  direction  quite  oppo- 
site." If  now,  an  evident,  definite  cause  can  be  shown,  the 
conclusion  of  Hartmann  falls  to  the  ground. 

Ewald's  latest  view,  as  we  learn  from  the  review  of 
Stahelin  in  the  Studium  und  Criticum  for  1831,  Heft  3,  is  as 
follows  :  "  The  name  Jehovah,  as  that  of  the  Mosaic  national 
God,  may  have  been  first  imparted  to  the  people  by  Moses, 
and  associated  with  the  national  worship.  In  the  period 
anterior  to  that  of  Moses,  God  may  have  been  known  by  a 
general  name,  as  Elohim  ;  or  a  historian  may  so  designate 
him,  in  contradistinction  to  that  of  the  Mosaic  revelation.  The 
first  groundwork  of  the  whole  Pentateuch  is  formed  by  a 
writing,  which,  as  far  as  Exod.  vi.  2,  always  names  God 
Elohim,  according  to  the  belief  or  tradition  that  the  name 
Jehovah  was  first  made  known  by  Moses,  and  closely  con- 
nected with  the  whole  structure  of  Mosaic  worship.  Another 
writing  is  interwoven  with  this,  which,  less  correct  in  the 
ancient  application  of  terms,  employs  Jehovah,  the  Mosaic 
divine  name,  to  designate  the  Deity  in  the  patriarchal  times, 
using  also  the  term  Elohim  ;  and  thus  portions  occur  in 
which  Elohim  appears  exclusively,  which  is  not  the  case 
with  respect  to  Jehovah,  unless  incidentally.  Those  docu- 
ments have,  with  judicious  connexion  and  thought,  been  in- 
corporated by  a  later  writer  into  one,  so  that  Genesis,  in  its 
present  state,  appears  as  the  well  connected  work  of  some 
individual." 

But  if  the  difference  between  Jehovah  and  Elohim  was 
generally  recognized  by  the  people,  how  is  it  possible  that 
two  Israelites,  the  author  of  the  second  writing  and  the  col- 


INTRODUCTION.  35 

lector,  could  commit  so  unfortunate  a  blunder  as  to  employ 
the  name  of  the  national  God  in  circumstances  anterior  to 
the  national  existence  1  They  could  not  possibly  have  re- 
garded it  merely  as  the  name  of  the  national  God.  Another 
consideration,  comprehending  this  idea,  but  not  identical 
with  it,  will  account  for  its  use  in  periods  before  the  time  of 
Moses. 

Hengstenberg  very  justly  remarks,  that  it  is  of  the 
greatest  importance  to  determine  the  derivation,  and  hence 
to  ascertain  the  fundamental  meaning  of  the  terms  under 
consideration.  He  begins  with  Jehovah,  and  settles  the 
previous  question,  whether  the  word  is  of  foreign  or  of 
Hebrew  origin.  He  investigates  the  Egyptian  and  Phoeni- 
cian claims,  and  rejects  them  as  inadmissible.  The  claim 
set  up  for  a  Chinese  origin,  and  the  derivation  from  Jovis, 
are  hardly  worthy  of  notice.  The  word  is  undoubtedly  of 
Hebrew  etymology. 

The  learned  writer  then  proceeds  to  examine  the  correct 
punctuation  of  the  word.  In  his  opinion,  the  vowels  in 
present  use  were  taken  from  Adonai,  and  the  original  pro- 
nunciation was  yahveh,  rilHl  (o^  ^Il^-O  making  the  regular 
future  of  !T1!1,  and  meaning  the  existing,  literally,  'he  will 
exist.'  He  considers  Exod.  iii.  14:  "and  God  said  unto 
Moses,  I  am  what  I  am,"  or ;  '  I  will  be  what  I  will  be,' 
n^in^  'Tt?^  t^l^n*^'  ^s  implying  immutability.  In  the  words  of 
Augustin  in  loc.  :  "  it  is  the  name  of  unchangeableness.  For 
all  things  that  are  mutable,  cease  to  be  what  they  were,  and 
begin  to  be  what  they  were  not.  Immutability  is  peculiar 
to  essential  truth.  He  has  the  property  of  existence  to 
whom  it  is  said,  '  thou  shalt  change  them,  and  they  shall  be 
changed,  but  thou  art  the  same.'  What  is  "  I  am  that  I 
am,"  but '  I  am  eternal'  1  What  is  "  I  am  that  I  am,"  but  '  I 
cannot  be  changed'  ?"    '  The  existing,'  and  '  the  unchanging,' 


36  INTRODUCTION. 

he  considers  as  equivalent  in  meaning,  and  as  conveying  the 
sentiment  of  the  text. 

Like  Hengstenberg,  Drechsler  also  examines  the  significa- 
tion of  the  two  names,  before  he  attempts  to  deduce  any 
theory  in  reference  to  their  use  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  In 
general  viev^^s  and  results,  those  two  scholars  coincide. 
But  the  latter  writer,  proceeding,  in  his  argument,  from  the 
same  text  in  Exodus,  comes  to  the  conclusion,  that  Jehovah 
implies  capability  in  hi/nself.  The  words,  "  I  will  be  what 
I  will  be,"  do  not,  he  thinks,  express  the  idea  usually  at- 
tached to  them  of  immutability,  but  rather  that  of  unlimited 
freedom.  This,  he  maintains,  accords  with  analogous  usage, 
and  refers  to  2  Kings,  viii.  1, "  sojourn  where  thou  will  sojourn," 
^13!iin  "Itp'iiJla  ^n^ri ;  also  to  2  Sam.  xv.  20,  and  Gen.  xliii.  14, 
which  are  less  to  the  point.  He  considers  the  declarations 
in  Exod.  xxxiii.  19,  Rom.  ix.  15,  "I  will  have  mercy  on 
whom  I  will  have  mercy,"  as  entirely  parallel  to  the  words 
in  Exodus  iii.  14.  Independent  action  and  independent 
being  may  be  considered  as  necessarily  connected.  On  this 
ground,  and  in  as  much  as  the  word  tl^.il!^  '  I  will  be,'  or  '  I 
am,'  is  used  instead  of  the  whole  expression,  Drechsler 
concludes  that  the  thought  thereby  conveyed,  is  that  of  in- 
dependent being,  p.  12. 

This  thought  is  so  closely  allied  to  that  given  by  Hengs- 
tenberg, that  the  practical  application  of  both,  in  reference 
to  the  use  of  the  divine  names  in  Genesis,  coincides.  To  de- 
termine their  comparative  philological  correctness,  would 
be  of  little  importance.  The  commonly  received  exposition, 
which  asserts  immutability  of  character,  inasmuch  as  it 
accords  with  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words,  and  com- 
prehends the  idea  of  independent  volition  and  action,  is  here 
presumed  to  be  the  true  interpretation.  Unlimited  freedom 
in  the  formation  of  plans,  and  also  in  their  execution,  is  thus 
necessarily  implied  in  the  declaration  under  consideration. 


INTRODUCTION. 


37 


The  word  Elohim  is,  in  all  probability,  derived  from  a 
root,  which,  although  lost  in  the  Hebrew,  is  still  retained  in 
the  Arabic  language,  nbi^,  ^\,  which  not  only  means  '  to 
worship  God,'  but  also  '  to  be  astonished,  amazed,  struck 
with  fear.'     Thus  it  conveys  the  idea  of  holy  reverence  and 
terror,  analogous  to  the  language  in  Gen.  xxxi.  42,  53,  where 
God  is  called  "  the  fear  of  Isaac,"  meaning  doubtless  the  ob- 
ject of  his  most  sacred  awe.     Comp.  Isa.  viii.  13,  "  let  him, 
(Jehovah,)  be  your  fear  and  your  dread."     Thus  Elohim  may 
be  regarded  as  a  general  term  for  God,  implying  his  glory 
and   dignity,  as    Creator,  preserver   and   governor   of   all 
things,   and  by  consequence    exhibiting    him   as   the  great 
being,  whom  all  his  creatures  are  to  honour  and  reverence, 
at  the  very  thought  of  whose  unlimited  power  all  the  uni- 
verse must  tremble :  the  great  and  mighty  God,  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  feeble  and  inefficient  creature. 

Hengstenberg  objects  to  the  opinion,  so  anciently  and  fre- 
quently maintained,  that  the  plural  form  implies  plurality  of 
persons.  In  that  case,  he  thinks  it  could  not  be  used  of  di- 
vine personages  in  the  widest  application,  as  of  angels  and 
supernatural  beings,  as  it  is  in  Ps.  viii.  5 ;  1  Sam.  xxviii.  13 ; 
and  also  of  idols.  But,  without  deciding  in  favour  of  the 
opinion  referred  to,  it  may  be  said,  that  whenever  the  term 
is  so  used,  that  original  ground  of  the  plural  form  might  be 
lost  sight  of.  This  is  the  case  in  a  multitude  of  words,  as 
their  meaning  varies  in  proportion  to  the  extensiveness  of 
their  application.  And  it  is  the  case  in  English  when  we 
apply  the  word  God  to  denote  a  false  god,  an  evil  being,  al- 
though originally  it  implied  goodness,  as  a  characteristic  ne- 
cessarily belonging  to  the  being  so  designated. 

If  it  is  clear,  that  the  Pentateuch  contains  a  revelation  of 
God  progressively  advancing,  until  it  terminates  in  a  de- 
velopement  of  the  complete  theocracy  ;  then,  from  the  inti- 
mate connexion  of  name  and  thing,  we  may  reasonably  ex- 


38  INTRODUCTION. 

pect  that  the  author,  by  the  use  of  designed  and  carefully- 
varied  divine  names,  intended  to  note  a  real  difference 
characteristic  of  the  earlier  and  later  periods.  If  Elohim 
be  the  more  general,  and  Jehovah  the  more  definite  and 
profound  name  of  the  Deity,  we  might  consequently  expect 
to  find,  that  the  use  of  these  terms  varies,  before  the  full 
establishment  of  the  theocracy,  in  a  different  manner  from 
what  it  does  after.  According  as  the  subject  is  connected 
with  the  earlier  or  later  period,  in  other  words,  as  the  anal- 
ogy with  the  world  in  general  or  with  the  theocracy  pre- 
dominates, the  name  Jehovah  or  Elohim  must  be  employed. 
As  the  name  indicates  character,  the  language  in  Ex.  vi.  3, 
"by  my  name  Jehovah,"  is  equivalent  to  'in  my  character 
as  Jehovah.'  The  reference  is  not  to  the  mere  name,  but  to 
the  thing  designated.  "  You  shall  know  that  I  am  Jehovah, 
your  God ;"  you  shall  know  it  by  the  wonderful  deliverance 
from  Egypt.  Such  a  developement  of  divine  power  was 
never  made  to  the  patriarchs,  and  indeed,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  it  could  not  have  been.  This  text  determines 
nothing  respecting  the  age  of  the  tey^m  Jehovah.  It  speaks 
of  the  revelation  of  God  as  Jehovah.  Thus  far  the  same 
being,  who,  in  one  respect,  was  Jehovah,  in  another  has 
always  been  Elohim.  Now,  the  great  catastrophe  ap- 
proaches, by  which  Jehovah-Elohim  becomes  or  displays 
himself  as  Jehovah. 

Thus  Hengstenberg.  Drechsler  also  maintains  that  the  use 
of  the  two  names  rests  on  grounds  connected  with  the  sub- 
ject, and  that  the  difference  in  such  use  observable  in  Gene- 
sis from  that  found  in  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  is 
not  to  be  ascribed  to  mere  arbitrariness  on  the  part  of  the 
writer,  but  arises  from  its  peculiar  character  of  the  contents, 
which  bears  an  especial  relation  to  one  or  other  of  the  divine 
names,  as  either  may  be  found  to  have  been  employed.  He 
then  remarks  as  follows. 


INTRODUCTION.  39 

"If,  in  order  to  discover  the  object  which  this  varying 
usage  has  in  view,  we  examine  the  other  books  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, it  will  appear  that  the  same  usage  prevails  in  these 
as  is  to  be  found  in  the  later  historical  writings.  In  the 
first  four  chapters  of  Deuteronomy,  in  eighty-one  instances 
where  the  Supreme  Being  is  mentioned,  the  term  Elohim 
occurs  only  seven  times. 

"  Further,  the  important  fact  is  not  to  be  omitted,  that,  in 
other  books  besides  Genesis,  where  the  name  Jehovah  pre- 
dominates, Elohim  is  used  exclusively  in  sections  of  consi- 
derable length.  This  is  the  case  in  Jud.  ix.  and  2  Sam.  ix. 
And,  as  might  naturally  be  expected,  instances  of  the  con- 
trary usage  are  also  to  be  found. 

"  It  has  been  stated  that  an  examination  of  passages  proves 
the  word  Jehovah  to  be  much  more  frequently  used  than  the 
other.  This  might  have  been  exyjected,  as  it  designates  God 
as  having  revealed  himself.  And,  inasmuch  as  the  Israelitish 
people  constituted  the  scene  of  his  operations,  their  existence, 
and  the  condition  of  it,  both  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  compre- 
hending their  institutions  and  whole  manner  of  life,  were  the 
result  of  his  revelations.  Consequently  the  name  Jehovah 
must  have  been  all-important  to  the  Israelites.  It  is  unne- 
cessary therefore  to  inquire  under  what  circumstances  this 
term  would  be  employed,  but  when  the  other  might  or  must 
be  used. 

"  This  general  term,  Elohim,  referring  to  the  Creator,  is 
in  contradistinction  to  the  name  Jehovah ;  which  refers  to 
him  as  having  made  a  revelation  of  himself  See  Deut.  iv. 
32 — 40  :  '  For  ask  now  of  the  days  that  are  past,  which 
were  before  thee,  since  the  day  that  God  created  man  upon 
the  earth,  and  ask  from  the  one  side  of  heaven  unto  the  other, 
whether  there  hath  been  any  such  thing  as  this  great  thing 
is,  or  hath  been  heard  like  it  1  Did  ever  people  hear  the 
voice  of  God  speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  as  thou 


40  INTEODUCTION. 

hast  heard,  and  live  ?    Or  hath  God  assayed  to  go  and  take 

him  a  nation  from  the  midst  of  another  nation,  by  temptations, 
by  signs,  and  by  wonders,  and  by  war,  and  by  a  mighty 
hand,  and  by  a  stretched-out  arm,  and  by  great  terrors,  ac- 
cording to  all  that  Jehovah  your  God  did  for  you  in  Egypt 
before  your  eyes?  Unto  thee  it  was  shewed,  that  thou 
mightest  know  that  Jehovah  he  is  God ;  there  is  none  else 
besides  him.  Out  of  heaven  he  made  thee  to  hear  his  voice, 
that  he  might  instruct  thee :  and  upon  earth  he  shewed  thee 
his  great  fire ;  aad  thou  heardest  his  words  out  of  the  midst 
of  the  fire.  And  because  he  loved  thy  fathers,  therefore 
he  chose  their  seed  after  them,  and  brought  thee  out  in  his 
sight  with  his  mighty  power  out  of  Egypt ;  to  drive  out 
nations  from  before  thee,  greater  and  mightier  than  thou  art, 
to  bring  thee  in,  to  give  thee  their  land  for  an  inheritance, 
as  it  is  this  day.  Know  therefore  this  day,  and  consider 
it  in  thine  heart,  that  Jehovah  he  is  God  in  heaven  above, 
and  upon  the  earth  beneath :  there  is  none  else.  Thou 
shalt  keep  therefore  his  statutes,  and  his  commandments, 
which  I  command  thee  this  day,  that  it  may  go  well  with 
thee,  and  with  thy  children  after  thee,  and  that  thou  mayest 
prolong  thy  days  upon  the  earth,  which  Jehovah  thy  God 
giveth  thee,  for  ever.'  Compare  also  1  Kings,  xviii.  24: 
'And  call  ye  on  the  name  of  your  gods,  and  I  will  call  on  the 
name  of  Jehovah :  and  the  God  that  answereth  by  fire,  let 
him  be  God.  And  all  the  people  answered  and  said,  It  is 
well  spoken.'  In  these  and  other  cases,  God,  as  he  is  in  his 
nature,  is  distinguished  from  God  as  having  revealed  himself. 
Elsewhere  this  difference  is  not  essential,  and  then  the  two 
expressions  imply  no  contradistinction,  and  may  be  used  in- 
differently, as  is  the  case  in  many  places."  p.  9,  10,  17,  20. 

The  term  Elohim,  then,  is  the  general  designation  of  the 
glorious  maker,  preserver,  and  governor  of  the  universe,  the 
great  and  dreadful  God,  a  proper  estimate  of  whose  attri- 


INTRODUCTION.  41 

butes  must  fill  the  mind  of  every  intelligent  creature  with 
reverential  awe,  the  more  profound  in  proportion  as  those 
attributes  are  truly  understood  and  appreciated.  The  other 
word,  Jehovah,  designating  the  same  eternal  and  infinite 
being,  has  a  particular  bearing.  God  is  contemplated  as 
having  a  grand  and  ultimate  object  in  view.  To  accom- 
plish this,  he  displays  himself  with  different  degrees  of  clear- 
ness as  a  being  without  the  possibility  of  change,  and  with 
infinite  freedom  of  volition  and  of  action.  In  this  light  he  is 
Jehovah ;  and  in  this  light,  his  revelations  and  actions  to- 
wards his  people  are  proper  exhibitions  of  him  as  the  un- 
changeable and  the  infinite. 

If,  now,  a  clearly  marked  difference  of  meaning  in  the 
terms  themselves,  and  also  a  clearly  marked  difference  of 
object  on  the  part  of  the  writer,  are  the  general  grounds  of 
the  varying  usage  under  consideration,  the  gain  to  the  truth 
as  historically  transmitted  is  considerable.  The  inference, 
which  at  one  time  was  drawn  without  hesitation,  namely, 
that  the  fact  indicates  different  authors,  is  evidently  un- 
founded. The  same  writer  may  have  chosen  different  terms, 
as,  in  his  judgment,  the  one  or  the  other  harmonized  the 
better  with  the  character  of  the  accompanying  contents. 

But  still  the  question  arises,  is  this  the  invariable  ground 
of  the  usage?  Are  there  no  cases  where  either  term  might 
have  been  employed  without  weakening  the  impression  de- 
signed to  be  conveyed  by  the  narrations  in  connexion  with 
which  one  of  them  is  used  ?  I  am  compelled  to  express  the 
opinion,  that  there  are.  It  is  manifest  to  me,  that  in  several 
places  either  term  might  have  been  chosen,  and,  as  it  would 
seem,  without  affecting  even  in  the  slightest  degree  the  in- 
fluence of  the  connected  portion  on  the  mind  of  the  reader. 
However  true  the  principle  laid  down  may  be  as  the  gene- 
ral ground  of  the  usage,  the  two  learned  authors  referred  to 
appear  to  me  occasionally  to  carry  the  application  of  it  un- 
6 


42  INTRODUCTION. 

warrantably  far.  They  sometimes  make  the  sacred  writer 
scrupulously  and  minutely  particular  in  the  choice  of  his 
terms,  at  the  expense  of  simpUcity  and  nature.  Jehovah 
and  Elohim,  which,  although  differing  in  primary  meaning, 
do,  it  is  allowed,  designate  the  same  God,  may  sometimes 
be  used  as  proper  names,  without  regard  to  their  original  or 
etymological  meanings,  just  as  Jesus  and  Christ  are  ordi- 
narily used  by  Christians,  and  occasionally  in  the  New 
Testament. 

I  proceed  now  to  take  a  cursory  view  of  the  application 
of  these  terms  respectively  in  some  of  the  most  important 
portions  of  the  book  of  Genesis.  This  will  afford  me  an  oc- 
casion of  illustrating  the  remark  just  made,  and  give  the 
reader  an  opportunity  of  judging  of  its  correctness. 

Genesis  commences  with  an  account  of  the  creation,  and 
consequently  Elohim  is  the  more  suitable  word.  At  the  pe- 
riod here  referred  to,  God  had  not  appeared  as  Jehovah,  re- 
vealing himself  to  his  creature.  It  is  only  in  his  general 
connexion  with  the  whole  universe  that  he  is  here  brought 
forward  as  the  Almighty,  the  creator  of  all,  and  conse- 
quently superior  to  all.  The  Hebrew,  in  speaking  of  the 
creation,  could  undoubtedly  have  used  the  term  Jehovah  to 
designate  the  creator,  inasmuch  as  both  this  term  and  the 
other  represented  the  same  object  to  his  mind.  And  hence 
we  find  it  repeatedly  thus  employed,  as  in  Ex.  xx.  11  ;  xxxi. 
17;  Ps.  viii.  1  ;  xxxiii.  6;  civ.  16,  24;  Isa.  xlii.  5.  But  in 
the  first  introduction  of  an  account  of  the  creation,  the  author 
very  judiciously  places  himself,  as  it  were,  in  the  very  time 
of  the  act,  and  therefore  mentions  the  Divine  Maker  under 
the  name  which  is  particularly  appropriate  to  the  subject. 
"  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God ;"  and  it  is  "the  law 
of  Jehovah"  which  is  said  to  be  "perfect."     Ps.  xix.  1,  7. 

Man,  originally  good,  in  the  direction  of  all  his  powers  to 
God,  is  the  subject  of  what  follows.     Consequently  Elohim 


INTRODUCTION.  43 

appears  as  Jehovah,  thus  making  his  connexion  with  man 
the  subject  of  positive  revelation.  The  combination  of  the 
two  terms  is  to  show  that  the  same  being  is  intended 
by  both. 

The  supposition  that  the  second  chapter  contains  a  second 
history  of  the  creation  different  from  the  former  comprised 
in  the  first  chapter,  is  founded  on  a  misapprehension  of  its 
meaning.  It  is  not  a  history  of  the  creation  ;  it  merely  con- 
tains historical  information  introductory  to  what  follows  in 
the  third  chapter. 

These  brief  observations  sufficiently  explain  the  ground  of 
the  usage  in  the  second  and  third  chapters.  But  for  the 
reader's  satisfaction,  I  add  the  following  abridged  remarks 
of  Hengstenberg.  '  Both  names  are  here  used,  thus  imply- 
ing that  the  being  designated  by  each  is  one,  that  the  true 
Elohim  is  Jehovah,  and  that  Jehovah  is  really  Elohim. 
Sometimes  the  exclusive  use  of  one  followed  by  an  exclu- 
sive use  of  the  other,  implies  the  same  thing,  as  is  the  case 
in  the  book  of  Jonah.  In  the  portion  under  consideration, 
the  name  Jehovah  is  that  which  is  best  adapted  to  the  na- 
ture of  the  contents.  The  living  God,  revealing  himself  to 
his  creatures,  is  now  manifested.  He  appears  as  the  affec- 
tionate guardian  of  men,  the  disposer  of  moral  life,  command- 
ing and  prohibiting,  threatening  punishment,  and  opening 
before  the  mind  the  restoration  which  shall  be  hereafter.  If 
the  author  had  had  in  view  those  only  who  had  attained  to 
a  clear  recognition  of  the  connexion  of  Elohim  and  Jehovah, 
the  latter  term  alone  would  have  been  sufficient.  But,  inas- 
much as  he  rather  aims  first  to  intimate  the  grounds  of  the 
connexion  of  Jehovah  and  Elohim,  the  transition  from  the 
use  of  the  latter  term  to  that  of  the  former  alone  would 
have  been  too  rapid.  He  wished  to  avoid  the  misapprehen- 
sion, which  would  be  implied  in  the  supposition,  that  the 
God  who  dealt  so  humanely  with  men  might  be  a  different 


44  INTRODUCTION. 

person  from  the  creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  a  merely  infe- 
rior God  and  mediator.  He  therefore  here  uses  the  two 
terms  in  connexion,  in  order  that,  in  subsequent  portions, 
when  Jehovah  or  Elohim  occurs  alone,  the  reader  may 
immediately  recognize  the  truth  that  the  one  implies  also 
the  other. 

The  general  character  of  these  chapters  requires  the  use 
of  Jehovah.  But,  apart  from  this  consideration,  Elohim 
might  have  been  used  in  particular  places  with  equal  pro- 
priety. It  might  have  been  said  of  God,  as  well  as  of  the 
Lord  God,  "he  had  not  caused  it  to  rain  upon  the  earth." 
But,  as  this  notice  is  preparatory  to  the  account  afterwards 
to  be  related  of  the  establishment  of  Paradise,  it  represents 
God's  afiectionate  care  for  man  in  preparing  him  a  residence 
even  before  he  was  called  into  existence.  The  same  princi- 
ple explains  the  usage  elsewhere. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the  use  of  the 
two  terms  in  combination  must  be  limited  to  the  author. 
Consequently,  we  do  not  find  it  in  the  language  ascribed  to 
the  serpent  and  the  woman,  because  it  would  be  inconsis- 
tent with  the  nature  of  the  temptation,  and  also  with  such  a 
state  of  mind  as  would  give  it  consideration.' 

This  view  of  the  matter,  as  it  accounts  for  the  variable 
use  of  the  names,  destroys  the  hypothesis  of  particular  docu- 
ments, designated  each  by  its  own  respective  term. 

Elohim  has  now  appeared  as  Jehovah.  This,  therefore, 
becomes  in  the  fourth  chapter  the  predominant  term.  The 
other  might,  indeed,  in  most  places  have  been  used  with 
propriety,  but  this  is  particularly  appropriate,  as  the  of- 
ferings of  Cain  and  Abel  were  made  to  Jehovah,  The 
use  of  Elohim  in  v.  25,  "  for  God  hath  appointed  me  another 
seed,"  compared  with  that  of  Jehovah  in  v.  1,  "I  have 
gotten  a  man  from  the  Lord,"  where  the  subject  is  the  same, 
requires  no  laboured  exposition.     The  author  implies  that 


INTRODUCTION.  45 

each  term  is  equally  expressive  of  the  same  Divine  Being, 
"  the  giver  of  every  good  gift." 

Both  the  writers  before  mentioned  appear  to  be  fanciful  in 
assigning  reasons  for  the  difference  in  these  two  verses. 
Drechsler  supposes  that  the  choice  of  Elohim  in  v.  25, 
marks  the  opposition  between  God  and  man.  "  God  re- 
places in  the  person  of  Seth,  what  Cain  had  attempted  to 
destroy  in  that  of  Abel :"  p.  86.  Hengstenberg  maintains 
that  a  different  word  from  that  used  in  the  first  verse  marks 
the  state  of  the  mother's  mind.  "  At  the  first  birth,  her 
consciousness  of  the  divine  presence  and  being  is  particu- 
larly vivid.  By  inflicting  punishment,  God  had  shown  him- 
self to  be  Jehovah ;  as  Jehovah  also  is  he  recognized  in  the 
benefit.  In  the  birth  of  her  first  son.  Eve  discovers  a  dear 
pledge  of  his  favour.  At  that  of  Seth,  this  feeling  is  not 
a  little  qualified.  She  merely  recognizes  a  general  divine 
influence  ;  and  the  naturalness  of  the  event  does  not,  as  on 
the  first  occasion,  appear  to  her  entirely  in  the  back  ground." 
This  inference,  founded  on  such  slight  premises,  will  not  be 
considered  as  receiving  much  support  from  the  language  of 
Leah,  to  which  the  author  appeals,  although  he  chooses  to 
conclude  that  "  the  correctness  of  the  exposition  is  conse- 
quently indubitable."  p.  320.  He  gives  no  references,  but  I 
presume  he  alludes  to  the  language  of  xxix.  31-35,  compared 
with  that  of  xxx.  17,  20. 

The  indiscriminate  application  of  a  true  theory,  without 
a  due  regard  to  exceptions  and  limitations,  by  which  every 
theory  on  such  a  subject  must  be  modified,  appears  also  in  the 
remarks  of  one  at  least,  if  not  both  of  these  writers,  on  the 
next  portion  of  the  book  of  Genesis. 

'  In  the  whole  account  of  the  flood,'  says  Drechsler,  '  Elo- 
him and  Jehovah  are  both  used,  the  former  term,  however, 
greatly  preponderating.  And  this  is  very  proper,  as  the 
subject  relates  to  mankind  in  general,  and  not  particularly  to 


46  INTRODUCTION. 

God's  church.  A  second  creation,  as  it  were,  is  related, 
and  the  ninth  chapter  evidently  refers  to  the  first.  Connp.  ix. 
1,  7,  with  i.  22,  28  ;  ix.  2,  with  i.  26  ;  ix.  3,  with  i.  29,  30.' 
See  p.  103. 

This  may  be  allowed  to  be  natural  and  reasonable.  But 
how  does  the  author  account  for  the  exceptions  to  the  use 
of  Elohim  ? 

In  vi.  6,  7,  Jehovah  occurs.  "  It  repented  the  Lord" — 
"  and  the  Lord  said."  "  Here  God  makes  his  determination, 
a  determination  which  is  founded  on  his  merciful  intention 
to  redeem  fallen  man:  therefore  Jehovah  is  used."  p.  104. 
Extraordinary  reason  truly  !  The  excision  of  the  race  of 
men  then  existing  may,  indeed,  have  been  necessary  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  intention  ;  but 
surely  the  determination  to  cut  them  off  does  not  even  inti- 
mate such  an  intention.  "  But  the  execution  of  the  deter- 
mination accords  best  with  the  general  idea  of  the  creator." 
Ibid.  Elohim  is  consequently  employed.  On  this  theory, 
we  might  certainly  expect  to  find  Jehovah  in  vi.  22,  where 
we  read  :  "  according  to  all  that  God  commanded  Noah,  so 
did  he."  In  fact,  this  term  does  occur  in  vii.  5,  "  that  the 
Lord  commanded  him"  ;  and  here  the  author  remarks,  that 
"  the  highly  favoured  Noah  must  exercise  obedience,  blind 
obedience  enjoined  by  an  absolute,  positive  law.*  Therefore, 
Jehovah."  p.  105.  But  on  this  ground,  vi.  22,  and  vii.  5,  would 
both  require  Jehovah,  since  both  are  equally  commands. 

An  outline  of  Hengstenberg's  remarks  must  now  be  given. 

Gen.  vi — ix.  Ewald  considers  this  portion  of  the  book 
as  of  the  highest  importance,  in  its  bearing  on  the  theory 
of  two  documents,  characterized  by  the  use  of  Elohim  and 
Jehovah. f     It  is  therefore  worthy  of  particular  attention. 

*  "Blinden  Gehorsam  (lurch  ein  wlUkiihrliches,  positives  Gebot." 
f  Komp.  der  Genesis,  p.  81. 


INTRODUCTION.  47 

*  vi.  1-8  forms  a  sort  of  introduction,  stating  the  cause  of 
the  divine  judgments.  With  the  exception  of  the  phrase 
"  sons  of  God,"  Jehovah  is  invariably  and  frequently*  em- 
ployed. The  subsequent  narrative  shows  an  abundant  use 
of  the  term  Elohim  ;  though  Jehovah  is  several  times  unex- 
pectedly introduced,  as  in  vii.  1,  5  and  16,  immediately  after 
Elohim,  and  in  viii.  20,  21,  ix.  26,  immediately  follov^red  by 
it.  Ewald  takes  no  notice  of  this  difficulty,  and  Sack's  ex- 
position is  unsatisfactory.'  p.  324-326. 

"  It  is  the  authors  purpose  to  show  how  Elohim  gradually 
became  [manifested  himself  as]  Jehovah.  He  has  already 
taken  the  first  step,  and  has  the  second  in  contemplation. 
The  history  of  Abraham  is  pretty  closely  connected  with 
the  account  of  the  flood  ;  for  in  the  intermediate  portion  the 
divine  names  occur  but  seldom,  and  the  subjects  are  of  such 
a  character  throughout  as  to  make  the  use  of  Elohim  inad- 
missible. If  now  the  author,  before  entering  on  this  new 
and  important  section  of  his  work,  wished,  by  the  use  of  the 
divine  names,  to  call  his  readers'  attention  to  this  point,  that 
the  being  who  had  already  been  exhibited  as  Jehovah  was 
still  in  a  considerable  degree  Elohim,  and  that  consequently 
new  and  more  glorious  discoveries  and  revelations  were 
still  to  be  unfolded,  this  must  necessarily  be  done  in  tl»e 
portion  under  consideration,  in  which  the  very  frequent 
use  of  the  divine  names  must  prevent  his  purpose  from 
being  hid. 

"  If  the  author  had  employed  Elohim  from  the  beginning, 
[of  this  portion,]  one  aspect  of  the  truth  would  have  re- 
mained concealed,  namely  this,  that  God  was  in  a  consider- 
able degree  already  Jehovah,  and  displayed  himself  as  such 
in  the  whole  of  this  great  occasion.  He  therefore  in  the 
introduction  employs  Jehovah  frequently  and  with  evident 

*  Only  five  times,  including  v.  5. 


48  INTBODUCTION. 

design.  Consequently  Elohim,  which  occurs  so  often  in  the 
subsequent  representation,  partly  in  reference  to  actions  in 
connexion  with  which  Jehovah  had  immediately  before  been 
made  prominent,  could  not  be  misunderstood.  The  intro- 
duction shows  that  Elohim  is  not  to  be  taken  merely  in  the 
abstract,  but  that  it  implies  this  transition  to  Jehovah,  who, 
in  connexion  with  what  follows,  is  still  Elohim."  p.  327,  328. 

Hengstenberg  then  proceeds  to  give  reason^;  why  the 
term  Elohim,  which  occurs  in  vi.  2,  4,  and  also  Jehovah, 
where  it  appears  after  vi.  8,  should  be  considered  as  excep- 
tions to  the  view  just  stated. 

After  an  examination  of  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  sons 
of  God,"  in  this  place,  which  he  shows  cannot  be  explained 
of  angels,  but  only  in  reference  to  truly  religious  men,  he 
remarks,  that  they  are  called  'sons  of  God'  rather  than  of 
Jehovah,  in  contradistinction  to  the  daughters  of  men,  in 
accordance  with  ordinary  usage,  which  employs  the  most 
general  designation  of  the  Supreme  Being,  when  heaven  and 
earth,  God  and  man,  are  set  in  opposition  to  each  other. 
Apart  from  this  consideration,  however,  he  thinks  there  is 
another  reason  in  favour  of  the  use  of  Elohim,  as  the  dignity 
implied  in  the  phrase  'sons  of  Jehovah'  would  be  too  great 
for  the  existing  developement  of  the  divine  purposes.  Such 
a  glory  must  be  reserved  for  a  subsequent  age.  See  Deut. 
xiv.  1,2.    p.  332.* 

'The  commencement  of  the  7th  chapter,  vers.  1,  5,  is  the 
proper  place  to  note  the  fact,  that  the  same  being  who  in  some 
respects  is  still  Elohim  simply,  is  in  other  very  weighty  ones 
Jehovah ;  and  thus  the  usage  in  vi.  1 — 8,  is  recalled  to  the 
reader's  mind.  We  stand  here  on  the  very  verge  of  the 
great  catastrophe.     The  authority  of  Jehovah  determines 

*  Drechsler  has  no  difficulty  on  this  point,  as,  in  common  with  many 
Jewish  and  Christian  writers,  he  understands  the  phrase  in  question  of 
angels,    p.  91—93. 


INTRODL'OTION.  49 

the  numerical  preference  which  Noah  was  to  give  to  the 
clean  beasts  in  opposition  to  the  unclean,  inasmuch  as  offer- 
ings were  selected  exclusively  from  the  formei',  and  these 
offerings  were  made  to  Jehovah.  The  previous  command 
respecting  the  beasts  proceeds*  from  the  general  care  of  the 
creator  for  their  preservation;  this  particular  supplementary 
order,f  on  the  contrary,  appertains  properly  to  the  Deity,  as 
making  hir^self  personally  known,  that  is,  as  Jehovah.  It  is 
not  the  difference  between  clean  and  unclean  that  is  pecu- 
liarly connected  with  the  use  of  Jehovah,  for  this  distinction 
occurs  in  connexion  with  the  use  of  Elohim,  (vii.  8,  9 ;)  it  is 
only  the  solicitude  to  provide  the  larger  number,  which  is 
ascribed  to  Jehovah. 

In  vii.  16,  the  use  of  Elohim  marks  God's  care  for  the 
creatures  in  general,  while  that  of  Jehovah  intimates  his 
merciful  intentions  towards  Noah,  "  who  had  found  grace  in 
his  eyes."  "  When  Jehovah  shut  the  door  after  him,  all  the 
waters  of  heaven  and  earth  became  incapable  of  forcing  an 
entrance." 

In  viii.  20,  21,  Jehovah  is  entirely  appropriate,  as  it  is 
the  account  of  an  offering.  The  interchange  of  the  terms 
in  ix.  26,  27, — "  blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Shem ;  God 
shall  enlarge  Japheth," — is  easily  explained.  The  connex- 
ion of  the  two  verses  illustrates  the  connexion,  which  the  au- 
thor indirectly  points  out,  of  the  two  names  to  each  other. 
Jehovah  is  the  God  of  the  Shemites,  while  the  association 
of  Japheth  is  simply  with  Elohim.  The  equality,  as  it  re- 
spects the  divine  connexion,  which  has  heretofore  existed,  is 
to  cease,  and  Elohim  will  manifest  himself,  in  union  with  the 
family  of  Shem,  as  Jehovah.' 

Hengstenberg  remarks  further,  that,  if  the  theory  main- 

*  He  refers  to  vi.  19,  20. 
t  Alluding  to  vii.  2. 
7 


50  INTRODUCTION. 

tained  by  him  be  true,  the  use  of  the  two  names  may  be 
satisfactorily  accounted  for,  wherever  they  occur  in  the 
whole  section.  Tlius  the  blessing,  which  in  ix.  1  ss.,  is  im- 
parted to  Noah  by  God,  relates  to  natural  benefits  which  are 
of  a  general  character,  and  is  a  repetition  of  that  which  fol- 
lowed the  creation,  a  blessing  which  the  flood  seemed  to 
have  swept  away.  Hence  the  use  of  Elohim.  The  same 
principle  is  applied  by  him  to  the  subsequent  use  of  the  term 
in  this  chapter. 

He  concludes  with  the  observation,  that  in  the  phrase, 
"Noah  walked  with  God"  in  vi.  9,  no  other  appellation 
would  have  been  equally  apposite,  inasmuch  as  it  designates 
his  character  in  contradistinction  to  that  of  his  ungodly  con- 
temporaries :  "  not  with  them,  but  with  God,  did  Noah 
walk."    p.  328—336. 

Leaving  the  reader  to  form  his  own  judgment  on  the  pro- 
priety of  carrying  out  the  author's  theory  to  the  extent 
here  developed,  I  must  be  allowed  to  say,  that  occasion- 
ally its  application  wants  that  simplicity  which  the  mind 
would  naturally  desire.  Admitting  its  general  truth,  it  may 
be  carried  unreasonably  far.  Circumstances  merely  inci- 
dental may  induce  the  writer  to  use  the  one  term  or  the 
other,  where  no  very  important  cause  existed  to  lead  to  a 
preference.  The  phrase,  "  Noah  walked  with  Goc?,"  may 
be  founded  on  the  reason  just  given ;  but  if  the  author  in- 
tended to  state  immediately  afterwards  that  "the  earth  was 
corrupt  before  God"  and  that  '^God  looked  upon  it,  and 
behold,  it  was  corrupt,"  surely  we  need  go  no  further  for  a 
reason.  And  the  natural  phraseology  would  be  that  which 
follows:  "and  God  said  unto  Noah,"  v.  13.  Comp.  v.  24: 
"  Enoch  walked  with  God"  and  "  God  took  him,"  with  v.  1, 
"  God  created  ;"  "  in  the  likeness  of  God."  Still  the  phrase 
is  probably  used  with  the  view  of  indicating  that  the  mind 
and  heart  both  of  Noah  and  Enoch  were  drawn  away,  in 


INTRODUCTION.  51 

an  unusual  degree,  from  all  created  objects  to  that  holy  and 
spiritual  being  by  whom  they  had  been  called  into  exist- 
ence.— In  vi.  22,  which  refers  to  the  determination  expressed 
in  13,  and  the  consequent  command  to  Noah,  we  would 
naturally  expect  the  same  divine  term  to  be  used,  indepen- 
dently of  any  reason  connected  with  the  original  meaning  of 
the  word.  Immediately  afterwards,  the  Deity  appears  as 
Noah's  covenant  God  to  whom  he  had  revealed  himself,  and 
consequently  Jehovah  is  the  term  used.  See  vii.  1,  5.  The 
9th  and  16th  verses  of  the  same  chapter  manifestly  refer 
back  to  vi.  22,  and  therefore  the  word  Elohim  is  chosen  to 
express  God's  commanding;  while,  in  the  16th  verse,  Noah's 
covenant  God  of  revelation  discloses  his  character  and  rela- 
tion in  the  favour  implied  in  the  words,  "  Jehovah  shut 
him  in." 

Without  an  examination  of  the  work  of  Sack  above  re- 
ferred to,  to  which  I  have  not  access,  I  am  led  to  infer,  from 
Hengstenberg's  brief  notice  of  his  view,  that  it  coincides  with 
the  one  just  given ;  although  he  rejects  it,  as  manifestly  un- 
satisfactory, (offenbar  unzureichend.  p.  326.)  'When  Noah 
is  said  to  walk  vilh  God,  the  general  idea  of  the  divine  life 
is  intended  to  be  expressed.  The  subsequent  revelations 
therefore  are  not  attributed  to  Jehovah,  to  whom  they  pro- 
perly belonged,  but  to  Elohim,  because  connected  with  the 
decision  just  declared  respecting  Noah,  that  he  walked  with 
God,  "quia  adjunctas  sunt  illi  judicio  de  Noacho  eunte  coram 
deo." '  I  am  not  aware  that  any  objections  have  been  or 
can  be  urged  against  such  a  view  as  this,  which  involve  any 
difficulty  of  moment. 

As  the  principle  laid  down,  and  the  modifications  of  it 
which  have  been  proposed,  are  sufficient  to  account  for  the 
interchange  of  the  terms  in  question  in  the  whole  of  this  sec- 
tion, it  is  proper  to  pass  on  to  other  portions  of  the  book  of 
Genesis. 


52  INTRODUCTIO>f. 

Nimrod  is  called  "  a  mighty  hunter  before  Jehovah." 
X.  9.  If  the  term  '  hunter'  is  employed,  as  is  most  probable, 
to  denote  this  person's  oppression  and  tyrannical  character, 
then  the  phrase  "  before  Jehovah"  implies  the  insolence  and 
audacity  of  the  man.  See  the  note  on  the  place.  He  is  not 
to  be  restrained  by  the  presence  of  the  infinite  himself.  The 
choice  of  the  term  whereby  this  infinite  being  is  denoted, 
would  seem  to  be  a  matter  of  indifference.  The  author 
might  have  used  Elohim  or  Jehovah,  without  any  shade  of 
difference  in  the  general  meaning,  as  either  would  equally 
convey  the  idea  of  Nimrod's  impudent  and  licentious  ty- 
ranny. Hengstenberg  has  failed  to  make  out  his  assertion  that 
"  Jehovah  and  not  Elohim  is  to  be  justified  in  this  place"  ; 
for  either  term  would  be  appropriate.  True,  indeed,  the 
rebellious  Nimrod  "could  neither  escape  the  eye  of  the 
living  God,  which  was  directed  towards  him,  nor  avoid 
his  hand."  But  if  there  be  any  such  "  deep  irony"  in  the 
phrase  "  before  Jehovah,"  as  that  writer  supposes,  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  see  why  it  should  not  be  allowed  to  lurk  under  the 
other  phrase,  '  before  God,'  with  equal  certainty.  See  p. 
337,  339.  It  may  be,  indeed,  that  the  author  of  the  book  of 
Genesis,  both  here  and  elsewhere,  selects  the  term  Jehovah 
in  preference  to  Elohim,  in  order  to  intimate  that  the  God 
of  his  covenant  people  had  his  eye  on  bold  and  flagrant 
offenders,  and  would  visit  them  with  condign  punishment, 
either  with  the  view  of  furthering  his  plans  towards  that 
people,  or  of  chastising  individual  offenders  among  them. 
(The  latter  part  of  the  remark  would  apply  to  the  cases  of 
Er  and  Onan,  mentioned  in  xxxviii.  7,  10.)  But  we  should 
take  care  not  to  carry  out  this  theory  to  any  greater  ex- 
tent than  the  specific  character  of  the  cases  may  warrant. 
Ewald  has  certainly  violated  this  principle,  in  saying  that 
"  it  is  Jehovah  alone  who  gives  laws  ;  that,  according  to  the 
constant  use  of  language,  men  can  sin  against  Jehovah  only, 


INTRODUCTION.  53 

and  not  against  Elohim  ;  and^  that  it  is  Jehovah  only  who 
threatens  punishment."  p.  95.  Gen.  vi.  22.  vii.  9,  16,  where 
Elohim  "  commands"  Noah,  and  xxxix.  9,  where  Joseph 
speaks  of  "  sinning  against  Eloliim,"  contradict  his  as- 
sertion. 

Hengstenberg's  undeviating  adherence  to  his  theory  has 
an  evident  influence  on  his  estimate  of  the  religious  know- 
ledge and  character  of  the  various  personages  brought  be- 
fore us  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  Thus,  for  instance,  it  affects 
his  portrait  of  Melchisedek.  This  distinguished  king  and 
priest,  who  is  affirmed  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  He- 
brews to  have  been  greater  than  Abraham  himself,  the 
patriarch,  refers  to  the  Deity  ns  "  the  most  high  God,  the 
possessor  of  heaven  and  earth."  Gen.  xiv.  19.  But,  to 
this  i-epresentation  of  the  supreme  being,  Abraham  prefixes 
the  term  Jehovah,  v.  22,  "  and  this  must  have  been  intended 
to  show  that  Abraham  has  more  than  Melchisedek,  whatever 
they  may  have  held  in  common.  The  God  of  the  latter  is 
not  merely  one  [among  others],  but  he  is  the  highest,  whose 
authority  extends  over  the  whole  world.  Justice  and  love 
are  in  him  combined  with  omnipotence,  and  his  parti- 
cular providence  protects  the  pious  and  upright.  But  this 
view  of  religion,  however  pure,  is  yet  imperfect.  In  the 
highest  God,  the  lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  Melchisedek  has 
still  not  recognized  Jehovah.  As  such,  his  exhibitions  are 
confined  to  Abraham,  in  the  way  of  especial  revelation.  In 
the  earlier  history  of  mankind,  Jehovah,  both  in  name  and 
thing,  is  common  good  of  the  whole  human  race,  and  before 
the  calling  of  Abraham,  a  man  of  the  religious  earnestness 
of  Melchisedek  would  have  recognized  and  named  him, 
even  if  it  were  imperfectly."  p.  344,  345.  To  the  same 
effect,  and  if  possible  more  plainly,  does  the  author  speak 
in  Vol.  II.  p.  554.  "  Melchisedek  is  recognized  by  Abraham 
as  a  priest  of  the  true  God,  as  some  centuries  after  Moses 


54  INTRODUCTION. 

was  allied  with  Jethro,  by  the  bond  of  rehgious  community. 
Yet  it  is  a  heathenish  religiousness,  (eine  heidnische  ReU- 
giositat,)  QTi'^^  fl^T-"  ■^"'^  where  is  the  proof,  that  a 
holy  man  like  Melchisedek,  dignified  in  the  offices  which  he 
sustained,  and  chiefly  illustrious  as  a  type  of  the  great  high 
priest  and  king  of  his  people,  and  a  wise  man  like  Jethro, 
whose  counsel  the  great  and  inspired  Hebrew  legislator  him- 
self did  not  disdain  to  follow,  cultivated  a  sort  of  heathenish 
religion,  or  failed  to  regard  the  God  whom  they  worshipped 
and  obeyed  as  the  true  Jehovah  1  The  author's  assertion, 
that  "  the  more  God  becomes  Jehovah  for  Abraham,  the 
more  does  he  become  Elohim  for  all  the  rest  of  the  world," 
allowing  it  to  be  generally  true,  is  not  universally  so  ;  and 
surely  Melchisedek  may  well  be  considered  as  the  most 
prominent  of  all  exceptions.  It  should  not  be  forgotten,  that 
the  covenant  with  Abraham  could  not  annul  God's  pre- 
viously made  covenant  with  Noah,  and  in  him  with  all  man- 
kind, ix.  9  ss. 

'In  chap,  xvii,' says  Drechsler,  'Jehovah  is  used  in  v.  1, 
and  afterwards  Elohim  constantly,  because  the  subject  re- 
lated is,  as  it  were,  a  creation  of  a  people  from  nothing,  and 
therefore  a  powerful  proof  of  the  efficiency  of  God,  who  is 
for  the  first  time  described  as  "God  Almighty,"  '^'il'©  b!S5,  v.  1, 
for  which,  in  subsequent  verses,  where  Isaac's  birth  is  pro- 
mised, and  also  in  xxi,  where  it  is  narrated,  Elohim  is  used. 
Those  chapters  share  in  one  category  with  the  first  chapter.' 
p.  189,  190. 

'  Elohim  is  used  in  chap,  xvii,  and  Jehovah  in  chap,  xviii. 
But,  although  the  general  subject  is  the  same,  there  are 
some  points  of  difference  which  suggest  the  reason  of  the 
varying  use  of  these  appellations.  Chapter  xvii  contains  the 
promise  of  the  birth  of  a  son,  as  the  commencing  point  of 
the  long  and  great  work  of  the  creation  of  a  numerous  peo- 
ple ;  xviii  speaks  merely  of  the  birth  of  this  son  the  follow- 


INTRODUCTION.       .  55 

ing  year.  The  former  is  the  solemn,  I  may  say  public, 
act ;  the  latter  contains  private  discourse.  Abraham,  as  the 
father  of  a  multitude  of  nations,  and  this  great  posterity  to 
descend  from  him,  constitute  the  leading  idea  of  xvii,  which 
may  be  said  to  be  its  perfect  legal  instrument,  an  act  of 
official  character.  But  in  xviii,  this  subject  is  only  oppor- 
tunely introduced  ;  for  it  was  not  on  account  of  this  matter, 
but  a  different  one,  that  Jehovah  showed  himself  in  action, 
and  he  holds  intercourse  with  Abraham  and  Sarah  only  as 
private  persons.'  p.  191,  192. 

To  me,  all  this  appears  to  be  refined  and  arbitrary.  It 
assumes  a  gratuitous  and  unfounded  distinction,  which  seems 
to  have  been  devised  in  order  to  sustain  a  preconceived 
theory.  Either  appellation  is  sufficiently  adapted  to  the 
subject,  and  it  would  seem  unnecessary  to  investigate  very 
deeply  for  a  motive  which  might  lead  to  the  choice  of  one 
in  preference  to  the  other.  The  interchange,  both  here  and 
elsewhere,  may  be  intended  to  impress  the  reader  with  the 
conviction,  that  the  same  infinite  and  immutable  being  is 
denoted  by  each.  This  principle  sufficiently  illustrates  the 
usage  in  the  19th  chapter. 

In  chap.  XX,  Elohim  is  the  prevailing  term.  Here  the 
reason  is  plain.  The  narrative  makes  us  acquainted  with 
persons  who  had  no  other  idea  of  God  than  what  is  implied 
in  that  word ;  and  even  that  idea  was  very  imperfect. 
"  The  fear  of  God  in  this  place,"  is  all  that  Abraham  could 
reasonably  conceive  of  The  name  intimates  also  that  the 
patriarch  was  under  the  protection  of  that  glorious  being 
who  created  the  world  ;  and  it  was  the  divine  intention  in 
the  narrative,  to  make  this  truth  conspicuous  both  to  his 
contemporaries  and  also  to  future  generations.  The  unex- 
pected introduction  of  Jehovah  in  the  last  verse  points  out 
the  identity  of  the  being  designated  by  the  two  names. 

In  xxi  Elohim  is  used,  except  in  v.  1,  33.     The  author 


56  ixthoduction. 

has  evidently  a  reference  to  chap,  xvii,  in  which  the  usage 
is  strikingly  similar,  Jehovah  being  employed  in  the  first 
verse,  and  Elohim  always  afterwards.  The  subject  also 
corresponds,  the  one  portion  containing  the  accomphshment 
of  what  is  promised  in  the  other.  Comp.  xxi.  2,  3,  4,  5,  with 
xvii.  21,  19,  10 — 12,  17;  also,Vhat  is  said  in  each  chapter 
of  Isaac  and  Ishmael  respectively.  The  author  of  xxi  has 
undoubtedly  in  his  mind  the  contents  of  xvii.  The  same 
motive,  then,  which  gives  rise  to  the  choice  of  the  divine 
names  in  the  one,  may  fairly  be  presumed  to  account  for  it 
in  the  other.  It  would  therefore  seem  unnecessary  at  least, 
to  assume  with  Drechsler,  (p.  194,)  that  Elohim  is  used, 
when  the  subject  relates  to  Ishmael,  because  the  blessings 
promised  to  him  had  reference  merely  to  God's  omnipotence 
and  creative  power,  exclusive  of  any  covenant  relation  com- 
prehending positive  revelations.  This  reason  would  not 
apply  to  the  choice  of  this  appellation  when  Abraham  or 
Isaac  is  the  subject  of  discourse  ;  and,  in  all  probability,  the 
author's  motive  is  the  same  in  both  cases.  Certainly,  as 
Drechsler  says,  Abraham  is  commanded  to  "cast  out"  his 
son,  by  God  as  ruler  of  the  world,  in  contradistinction  to 
man,  who  had  neither  the  right  to  issue  nor  the  power  to 
enforce  such  an  order,  and  consequently  Elohim  is  fitly  cho- 
sen. But  it  is  undeniable,  that  the  expulsion  had  a  direct 
and  intimate  I'elation  to  the  divine  plan  concerning  Abra- 
ham, and  therefore  the  word  Jehovah  would  have  been 
equally  proper. 

Doubtless,  the  name  Jehovah  is  chosen  in  the  first  verse 
to  express  God's  covenant  relation  to  the  mother  of  the  child 
of  promise.  But  to  me  it  seems  fanciful,  to  account,  as 
Hengstenberg  does,  for  the  use  of  Elohim,  which  immediately 
follows,  (v.  2,)  on  the  ground,  that  it  points  out  "the  opposi- 
tion between  God's  word  and  man's  word."  The  differ- 
ence between  the  language  '  God'  and  '  angel  of  God'  in 


INTRODTJCTIOX.  57 

V.  9 — 21,  and  'Jehovah'  and  'angel  of  Jehovah'  in  xvi.  7  ss., 
while  the  subject  is  the  same  in  both  places,  he  attributes  to 
**  the  great  diversity  of  the  relations  which  resulted  from  the 
birth  of  Isaac.  Heretofore,  as  Ishmael's  circumcision  shows, 
Hagar  and  he  had,  in  some  degree,  formed  a  part  of  the 
chosen  family,  and  consequently  had  participated  in  its  con- 
nexion with  Jehovah.  With  the  declaration  of  God  in  v. 
12,  'in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called,'  they  go  out  of  the 
province  of  Jehovah  into  that  of  Elohim.  The  outer  sepa- 
ration from  the  chosen  race  was  only  a  manifestation  of  that 
which  had  already  taken  place  within.  After  this  final  sepa- 
ration, they  had  as  little  connexion  with  Jehovah  as  Cain, 
when  he  departed  from  the  church  of  God  in  Eden  and  be- 
took himself  to  the  land  of  Nod.  If  in  v.  20,  the  language 
was  '  and  Jehovah'  instead  of  '  and  God  was  with  the  lad,' 
it  would  be  an  express  contradiction  of  what  is  declared  in 
v.  12."    p.  354- 

An  examination  of  the  view  here  assumed  respecting  Ish- 
mael's exclusion  from  all  covenant  relation  with  Jehovah, 
would  be  foreign  to  my  present  purpose.  I  have  only  to 
remark,  that,  were  it  allowed  to  be  correct,  it  would  not 
explain  the  use  of  Elohim  in  v.  12,  where  it  is  clear  that 
either  this  term  or  Jehovah  w^ould  be  equally  appropriate. 

The  use  of  the  divine  names  in  the  next  chapter  is  easily 
explained.  God,  (Elohim,)  the  maker  and  the  owner,  re- 
quires Abraham  to  give  up  his  son,  and,  in  the  very  turning 
point  of  the  transaction,  Jehovah,  by  his  angel,  pi'events  the 
sacrifice,  and  manifests  himself  as  the  patriarch's  covenant 
•  God.  Comp.  V.  1,  with  11,  12.  That  the  change  of  names 
in  this  narrative  is  attributable  to  the  circumstance  of  its 
being  composed  of  two  original  documents,  is  ridiculous. 
This  would  have  produced  a  mechanical  piece  of  patch- 
work, whereas  the  account  is  remarkable  for  its  consistency 
and  unity.  It  requires  no  extraordinary  perspicuity,  in  order 
8 


58  INTRODUCTIO??. 

to  enable  the  reader  to  perceive  the  propriety  of  the  choice 
of  terms  whereby  to  denote  the  supreme  being.  But  when 
Hengstenberg  tells  us,  that  the  patriarch's  "  temptation  would 
have  had  no  object,  if  God  had  already  become  for  him  ab- 
solutely Jehovah,"  (p.  358,)  he  seems  to  have  forgotten  that 
•'  the  Son"  himself,  whom  the  father  had  declared  by  "  a 
voice  from  heaven"  to  be  his  "  beloved"  one,  was  tried  by 
the  severest  temptations.  "  Jehovah,"  the  "  merciful  and  gra- 
cious," might  subject  his  "  friend"*  to  such  a  test,  with  the 
view  of  strengthening  his  faith,  and  of  exhibiting  his  obe- 
dience to  the  imitation  of  all  subsequent  ages. 

The  remarks  already  made  will  enable  the  reader  to  ex- 
plain the  usage  in  the  chapters  immediately  following. 

In  XXV.  11,  it  is  said,  that  "God,  (Elohim,)  blessed  Abra- 
ham's son  Isaac."  Undoubtedly,  either  this  term  or  the 
other  is  equally  appropriate.  But,  says  the  author  just 
named,  "we  find  Elohim  in  this  place,  where  it  would  seem, 
at  the  first  look,  that  Jehovah  ought  to  stand.  Still,  if  we 
consider  that  the  notice  here  is  merely  occasional  and  preli- 
minary, and  that  the  author  does  not  professedly  enter  on 
the  history  of  Isaac  until  v.  19  ss.,  the  term  Elohim  will  ap- 
pear perfectly  satisfactory.  It  conveys  here  the  general  in- 
timation, that  the  blessing  of  God  or  of  heaven  passed  over 
from  Abraham  to  Isaac.  The  more  definite  designation  of 
this  blessing  follows  in  xxvi.  3,  12."  p.  362,  363.  "  Isaac," 
says  Drechsler,  "is  now  in  Abraham's  place.  From  this 
time  he  is  clothed  with  high  authority — his  cause  is  God's — 
and  he  himself  the  friend  of  God.  And  this  very  point, 
namely,  that  his  intluence  extends  to  that  higher  sphere,  that 
the  connexion  of  the  creator  of  the  world  to  Abraham  has 
passed  over  to  him,  lies  in  the  word  Elohim.  And  the  ac- 
tion implied  in  the  word  "  blessed,"  belongs  principally  to 

*  See  2  Chron.  xx.  7;  Isa.  xli.  8;  and  James  ii.  2,  3. 


INTRODUCTION.  59 

Elohim  ;  in  other  words,  Jehovah  blesses  especially  with 
blessings  of  his  omnipotence,  his  creative  power."  p.  197. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  remark,  that  the  representations  of  both 
these  writers  are  far-fetched,  in  consequence  of  an  unneces- 
sary application  of  a  correct  theory. 

The  same  remark  applies  in  part  to  Hengstenberg's  ex- 
planation of  the  usage  in  chap,  xxvii.  and  xxviii.  The  dim- 
sighted  Isaac  speaks  of  the  perfumed  clothes  of  the  supposed 
Esau  thus :  "  See,  the  smell  of  my  son  is  as  the  smell  of  a 
field  which  the  Lord  hath  blessed."  xxvii,  27.  "  Had  the 
comparison  been  taken  from  an  ordinary  richly  blooming 
field,  Elohim  would  have  been  employed.  The  use  of  Je- 
hovah shows  that  the  reference  is  to  a  field  such  as  those  of 
Paradise,  wherein  the  traces  of  the  Deity  clearly  shine  forth, 
— an  ideal  field,  holding  the  same  relation  to  ordinary  ones,  as 
Israel  did  to  the  heathen,  a  sort  of  magic  garden,"  &c. 
Such  a  land  of  enchantment  he  discovers  Canaan  to  have 
been  in  some  degree,  v.'hen  it  became  the  residence  of  the 
chosen  people.  The  odoriferous  vestments  of  Jacob  are 
viewed  by  his  father  as  the  type  of  Jehovah's  garden,  to  be 
verified  for  Israel,  as  is  pointed  out  in  the  words,  "God  give 
thee  of  the  dew  of  heaven  and  the  fatness  of  the  earth  and 
plenty  of  corn  and  wine."  v.  28.  p.  305,  366.  The  learned 
writer  is  carried  away  by  his  imagination.  Doubtless  the 
blessings  referred  to  are,  in  a  good  degree,  "  theocratical,"  as 
he  says,  "  and  appertain,  not  to  the  general,  but  especial 
providence  of  God ;"  and  therefore  the  phraseology,  "  field 
which  Jehovah  hath  blessed,"  is  entirely  apposite.  But  that 
the  blessings  referred  to  in  xxv.  11,  where  the  language  is, 
"  and  God  blessed  Isaac,"  do  not  comprehend  the  same  sort 
of  benefactions,  is  incapable  of  proof.  It  would  seem  plain, 
that  the  choice  of  either  term  was  in  both  places  a  matter 
of  indifference. 

In  xxviii.  16,  also,  when  Jacob  awakes  from  his  vision  and 


60  INTRODUCTION. 

says,  •'  surely  Jehovah  is  in  this  place,"  we  are  told,  that 
"Elohim  could  not  have  been  employed,"  because,  in  that 
case,  it  would  have  implied  Jacob's  ignorance  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  omnipresence,  p.  368.*  But  the  correct- 
ness of  this  inference  depends  on  Jacob's  meaning.  Un- 
doubtedly he  might  say,  "God  is  in  this  place  and  I  knew  it 
not,"  if  he  meant  that  the  Deity  was  peculiarly  present  to 
bless  him.  Jehovah  indeed  would  be  altogether  appropri- 
ate, but  Elohim  might  well  be  used,  and  in  either  case  the 
sense  would  be  precisely  the  same,-  The  right  explica- 
tion of  the  usage  in  both  the  chapters  would  seem  to  be  in 
general  simply  this,  that  the  Jehovah  of  xxvii.  is  identical 
with  the  Elohim  of  xxviii. — I  have  only  to  remark  further, 
that  Drechsler  is  undoubtedly  right,  when  he  represents  the 
first  four  verses  of  chap,  xxviii,  as  having  a  retrospective 
reference  to  chap,  xvii.  See  p.  198.  Compare  especially 
the  third  verse  of  the  former  with  the  first  of  the  latter. 

xxix.  31 — XXX.  24.  In  this  section,  the  terms  by  which 
the  Deity  is  designated  are  interchangeably  used  in  connex- 
ion with  the  birth  of  Jacob's  sons.  The  principles  already 
laid  down  sufficiently  explain  the  usage.  And  the  frequent 
use  of  Elohim  in  chap,  xxx.  calls  the  reader's  attention  to  the 
births  in  reference  to  which  it  occurs,  as  peculiar  favours  of 

*  According  to  Ewald,  "Jacob  is  reminded  that  hi$  own  family  God 
is  near  him  even  in  remote  lands."  Of  course,  any  other  term  than  Je- 
hovah Avould  fail  of  the  object,  "  That  some  deity  ruled  over  the  coun- 
try, Jacob  liad  no  need  to  be  informed;  but  that  his  powerful  family 
God  bore  sway  here  also,  he  recognizes  with  the  greatest  joy."  p,  59, 
According  to  this  view,  Jacob's  knowledge  of  the  true  God  was  like  that 
of  Ralak,  who  supposed  that,  although  the  divine  influence  might  in- 
deed prevent  Balaam  from  cursing  the  Israelites  from  one  spot,  another 
might  be  selected  in'which  it  should  not  be  exerted;  or,  of  those  Syrians 
who  thought,  that  "  the  Lord  might  be  God  of  the  hills,  but  not  of  the 
valleys."  See  Num.  xxiii.  13,  27;  1  Kings,  xx.  23,  28.  How  differ- 
ent this  is  from  the  real  fact,  it  were  idle  to  show  to  any  believer  in 
the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 


INTRODUCTION.  .  61 

a  beneficent  Providence.  It  is  unnecessary  to  search  farther 
for  any  recondite  motive  for  the  choice  of  the  term.  But 
the  wriler  to  whom  I  am  so  much  indebted,  and  from  whose 
particular  views  I  am  compelled  so  often  to  dissent,  is  not 
satisfied  with  such  a  general  solution.  He  finds  a  reason  in 
what  he  supposes  to  be  the  internal  condition  of  the  two 
sisters  at  the  various  times  of  their  becoming  mothers. 
"  Leah  had  suffered  unrighteous  treatment,  and  been  sub- 
jected to  mortification  ;  Jacob's  averseness  to  her  was  chiefly 
attributable  to  her  hard-hearted  and  invidious  sister,  who 
made  this  averseness  an  occasion  of  ridicule  and  contempt. 
Under  these  circumstances  Leah  and  the  author  both  re- 
cognized, in  her  own  fruilfulness  and  Rachel's  barrenness, 
not  merely  the  general  operation  of  Providence,  but  the 
especial  influence  of  the  righteous,  retributive  God.  At  the 
birth  of  "  her  maid's"  children,  no  reference  to  the  Deity 
occurs.  In  that  of  the  5th  and  6th  sons,  an  influence  of 
Elohim  is  recognized  ;  that  particular  significancy  intended 
by  the  birth  of  the  first  four,  here  finds  no  place  ;  the 
object  designed  had  been  effected,  and  things  resume  their 
ordinary  course ;  Leah's  consciousness  of  the  divine  in- 
fluence is  less  active  ;  her  eye  is  principally  directed  to 
natural  causes,  and  she  acknowledges  only  an  indefinite 
divine  co-operation."* 

"  The  later  feeling  of  Leah  influenced  Rachel  from  the 
beginning.  She  had  no  impulse  raising  her  to  Jehovah, 
whom  she  could  not  but  regard  in  the  light  of  a  judge  and 
avenger.  She  would  the  more  hesitate  to  express  his  name 
at  the  birth  of  "  her  maid's"  sons,  in  proportion  as  she  was 
conscious  how  much  she  had  contributed  to  the  event. 
After  she  has  recognized  the  favour  of  God  in  the  birth  of 

*  He  then  refers  to  what  he  had  before  said  on  the  birth  of  Abel.  See 
above,  p.  19,  20. 


62  INTRODUCTION. 

her  own  first  son,  does  she  become  more  confident.  She 
ventures  to  apply  to  Jehovah  for  a  second  son,  forgetting 
that  he  ought  to  be  the  object  of  her  fear,  inasmuch  as  she 
persists  in  unrighteous  conduct  towards  her  sister.  The 
son  she  prays  for  from  Jehovah  is  indeed  given  by  Jehovah, 
but  as  the  son  of  her  sorrow."  p.  374,  375. 

It  is  impossible  to  read  this  representation  of  the  simple 
narrative  without  feeling,  that,  while  it  contains  some  truth, 
it  is  overstrained  and  unjust  to  Rachel.  Her  sentiments 
towards  her  less  loved,  but,  as  a  mother,  more  favoured 
sister,  are  doubtless  not  to  be  vindicated  ;  but  this  writer's 
exceedingly  unfavourable  exhibition  of  them  is  unwarranted, 
and  the  inferences  he  deduces  altogether  extra vasrant. 
Rachel's  language  on  occasion  of  the  birth  of  Dan,  is  a 
pious  recognition  of  the  divine  protection,  and  on  becom- 
ing herself  the  mother  of  Joseph,  her  piety  and  gratitude 
and  faith  are  alike  conspicuous.  Undeviating  adherence  to 
a  theory  seems  in  this  instance  not  only  to  have  perverted 
Dr.  Hengstenberg's  judgment,  but  to  have  dimmed  his  per- 
ception of  right.  His  mode  of  accounting  for  the  use  of 
Elohim  on  the  birth  of  Leah's  fifth  and  sixth  sons,  when  Je- 
hovah had  been  employed  by  her  before,  is  quite  unneces- 
sary, and  assumes  a  change  of  views  and  feelings  in  the 
mother,  wholly  improbable. 

In  some  other  portions  of  Genesis,  the  author's  assump- 
tions appear  to  be  equally  arbitrary.  Knowledge  of  Jeho- 
vah, and  what  the  word  implies  in  denoting  God's  relation 
to  men,  is  attributed  or  denied,  in  accordance  with  the 
theory,  when  the  outward  circumstances  and  internal 
characteristics  of  the  individuals,  (so  far  as  the  brevity  of 
the  narrative  allows  us  to  form  a  judgment  respecting  them,) 
afford  little  or  no  ground  for  the  very  important  conclusions 
deduced.  I  cannot  but  think  that  this  observation  applies 
not  only  to  what  has  already  been  quoted  concerning  Leah 


INTRODUCTION.  63 

and  Rachel,  but  also  to  some  of  his  remarks  in  reference  to 
the  father  of  these  women.  It  is  especially  applicable  to 
his  declaration  respecting  Esau,  made  in  order  to  illustrate 
Jacob's  useof  Elohim  in  xxxiii.  11,  while  in  xxxii.  9 — 12,  he 
had  appealed  to  Jehovah  as  the  author  of  all  his  mercies. 
"  Jehovah  lay  without  the  circle  of  Esau's  religious  views, 
whose  piety  was  superficial,  and  who  had  only  an  occasional 
hour  of  devotion."  p.  379.  Admitting  this  delineation  of 
Esau's  religious  character  to  be  in  general  correct,  it  does 
not  prove  that  the  name  Jehovah  was  not  familiarly  used 
by  him,  as  it  undoubtedly  was  in  his  father's  family,  much 
less  that  Jacob  was  led,  by  such  a  consideration,  delibe- 
rately to  choose  the  term  Elohim  in  preference  to  the 
other. 

Chaps,  xxxix. — 1.  In  the  former  part  of  this  section,  the 
term  Jehovah  predominates,  and  is  always  used  when  the 
author  is  himself  the  speaker.  In  the  other  parts,  Elohim 
maintains  the  supremacy,  and  is  changed  occasionally  for 
God  Almighty,  which  is  of  similar  import.  Indeed,  the 
word  Jehovah  is  only  employed  once  in  the  last  ten  chapters 
of  Genesis,  namely,  in  Jacob's  dying  ejaculation,  xlix.  18, 
while  in  the  same  portion  Elohim  occurs  eighteen  times. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  chap,  xxxix.,  the  former  term  appears 
eight  times,  and  the  latter  only  once.  The  repeated  use  of 
Jehovah  in  this  chapter  might  be  expected,  as  Joseph's  con- 
dition was  subject  to  the  influence  of  that  special  provi- 
dence which  superintended  the  chosen  race,  protected  them 
in  Egypt,  and  thus  prepared  them  for  their  future  destination. 
The  use  of  Elohim  in  the  ninth  verse,  may  be  accounted 
for  as  Hengstenberg  (p.  384,)  and  Drechsler,  (p.  204,)  sug- 
gest, on  the  ground  that  Joseph  is  addressing  a  heathen,  to 
whom  this  general  designation  would  be  more  appropriate, 
if  not  more  intelligible,  than  the  other  more  particular 
name.     In  repelling   the  advances  of  Potiphar's  wife,  he 


64  INTRODLTTIOX. 

says,  "  How  can  I  do  this  great  wickedness,  and  sin  against 
God?"  Ti^io  subsequent  use  of  Elohim  is  easily  explained 
on  the  principles  already  stated  ;  and  it  is  unnecessary  to 
trouble  the  reader  with  a  repetition  of  them.  But  when 
Hengstenberg  attempts  to  account  for  its  introduction  in 
xli.  51,52,  where  Joseph  ascribes  his  happy  condition  to 
"  God,  because  he  did  not  regard  the  birth  of  his  sons  as 
connected  with  the  development  of  the  divine  kingdom," 
and  because  "it,  is  the  general  idea  of  providence  which 
here  rules,  the  indefinite  feeling  of  dependence  which  governs 
him,"  (p.  385,)  he  says  what  may  possibly  be  true,  but 
what  he  neither  does  nor  can  establish,  and  is  exceedingly 
improbable.  And  why  should  he  assume  this  of  Joseph, 
and  just  the  very  contrary  of  Leah  ?  It  may  indeed  be 
admitted,  that,  in  xlv.  5 — 9,  the  use  of  Elohim  marks  the 
divine  agency  in  contradistinction  to  the  merely  human  ; 
but  where  does  he  find  proof  of  his  declaration,  (introduced 
as  a  probable  exposition  of  the  use  of  Elohim  in  v.  9,)  that 
"  Jacob  had  been  wholly  governed  by  human  considerations, 
and  had  entirely  lost  from  his  view  the  leadings  of  God,  by 
whom  and  not  by  man  he  was  to  be  drawn  to  Egypt"  ? 
p.  380.  Neither  the  history  in  general,  nor  the  uniform 
course  of  conduct  of  the  patriarch,  in  any  degree  favours 
such  a  supposition.  It  is  a  gratuitous  aspersion  of  his  re- 
ligious character,  like  that  before  attempted  to  be  thrown 
on  the  wife  of  his  earlier  and  deeper  affections. 

Indeed,  this  learned  writer  is  not  himself  satisfied  with 
the  application  of  his  theory,  in  every  case  in  which  these 
two  divine  names  occur  in  the  latter  portion  of  Genesis. 
He  says,  that  '  although  the  use  of  Elohim  in  xlviii.  9,  "  these 
are  my  sons  whom  God  hath  given  me,"  may  be  vindicated, 
if  we  keep  the  connexion  out  of  view ;  yet,  it  is  evident, 
that  the  more  suitable  term  would  be  Jehovah,  whose  bless- 
ing immediately -follows.     So  also  in  v.  11,  "  Lo  !  God  hath 


INTRODUCTION.  65 

showed  me  thy  seed,"  Elohim  may  indeed  be  justified,  as 
expressive  of  divine  direction  in  opposition  to  human  pur- 
pose ;  yet,  the  solemnity  of  the  occasion  would  rather  lead 
us  to  expect  the  grateful  heart  to  raise  itself  to  Jehovah. 
Along  with  places  in  which  Elohim  must  necessarily  stand, 
are  found  several  in  which  it  does  answer  sufficiently  well, 
but  Jehovah  equally  so,  and  some  in  which  Jehovah  is 
plainly  the  more  suitable.  These  phenomena  are  surprising, 
and  would  seem  to  require  the  admission  of  some  grounds 
for  the  usage  particularly  appropriate  to  themselves.'  p. 
386—388. 

The  author  very  judiciously  rejects  the  solution  advanced 
by  Sack,  that  Joseph  uses  the  woi'd  Elohim  in  accordance 
with  that  heathen  influence  by  which  he  was  surrounded ; 
and  that  Jacob,  in  his  intercourse  with  him,  acquiesces  in 
the  same  usage.  His  own  is  vastly  more  respectful  to  the 
venerable  patriarchs,  but  whether  supported  on  surer  grounds, 
is,  to  say  the  least,  doubtful.  He  had  before  suggested,  that, 
in  the  earUer  patriarchal  history,  the  frequent  use  of  Elohim, 
and  the  designed  omission  of  Jehovah,  intimated  the  ap- 
proach of  a  new  period  in  the  development  of  the  divine 
character  and  being.  He  applies  the  same  principle  in  the 
cases  in  contemplation,  which  correspond  with  the  usage  in 
the  earlier  portion  of  Exodus,  in  which  Elohim,  not  Jeho- 
vah, is  the  prevailing  term.  "  The  Jehovah-sun,"  says  he, 
"  had  hidden  himself  behind  a  cloud  in  reference  to  the  cho- 
sen race ;  they  hoped  that  he  would  again  burst  forth  in 
clearer  splendor  than  ever,  but  were  conscious  that  for  the 
present  he  was  not  to  be  seen.  The  descent  into  Egypt 
must  necessarily  direct  their  eager  expectation  to  the  future. 
But  in  proportion  as  their  eye  was  turned  to  the  glorious 
revelations  of  God  still  in  prospect,  he  was  to  them  for  the 
present  Elohim."  p.  390,  391. 

If,  now,  the  invariable  usage  in  the  previous  part  of  the 
9 


66  INTRODUCTION. 

book  of  Genesis  were  manifestly  such  as  to  show,  that  the 
author  had  strictly  kept  in  view  the  etymological  and  really 
different  meaning  of  the  two  divine  names,  the  solution  sug- 
gested by  Hengstenberg,  or  some  other  accommodated  to 
the  difficulty,  might  be  accepted ;  but,  as  so  many  cases  oc- 
cur, where  the  principle  is  either  altogether  or  partially  in- 
applicable, the  instances  referred  to  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
book  are  to  be  classed  in  the  same  category  with  those. 
Inasmuch  as  they  contain  nothing  peculiar,  they  are  fairly 
explicable  on  the  grounds  already  stated. 

Ewald  would  account  for  the  use  of  Elohim  in  xlix.  29 — 
1.  26,  in  xl.  8,  and  many  other  places,  on  the  ground  that  the 
subject  has  no  reference  to  the  national  god  of  the  Hebrews, 
but  merely  to  God,  considered  as  superintending  and  direct- 
ing the  condition  of  a  family,  p.  45  ss.  But  this  is  evidently 
unsatisfactory,  for  the  character  and  condition  of  a  nation 
did  certainly  belong  to  the  Hebrews  when  in  Egypt,  more 
properly  than  in  the  time  of  Abraham  or  Isaac,  and  even  in 
the  earlier  period  of  Jacob's  life ;  and  yet,  in  these  latter 
circumstances,  the  national  name,  as  he  would  call  it,  is  fre- 
quently applied.  Here,  I  presume,  he  would  introduce  his 
hypothesis  of  a  second  document. 

There  is  doubtless  a  large  proportion  of  places  in  Genesis, 
where  the  author  has  been  led  to  the  choice  of  these  terms 
respectively,  because  of  some  peculiar  adaptation  of  the  one 
or  the  other  to  the  subject  in  connexion  with  which  it  occurs. 
There  are  other  portions  in  which  he  seems  to  have  employed 
both,  in  order  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  his  reader's  sup- 
posing a  different  being  to  be  intended.  And  probably  there 
are  still  others  in  which  the  usage  differs  for  the  sake  of  va- 
riety, and  because  no  particular  motive  existed  to  determine 
his  mind  to  the  choice  of  one  rather  than  the  other.  If  some 
cases  do  exist,  in  which  it  is  difficult  and  perhaps  impossible 
to  settle  the  ground  of  the  choice  of  these  appellations  of  the 


INTRODUCTION.  67 

supreme  being,  the  variety  of  the  usage  is  no  proof  of  dif- 
ferent original  documents.  One  writer  may  have  varied  the 
terms  for  the  best  of  reasons,  although  in  some  instances  not 
now  discoverable. 

I  conclude  this  introduction  with  the  following  extracts 
from  Jahn,  p,  208  ss.,  with  such  slight  modification  of  his  lan- 
guage as  appears  to  be  necessary  in  order  to  make  his  view 
in  all  respects  correct. 

"  The  records  contained  in  the  book  of  Genesis  are  not 
the  fictions  or  allegories  by  which  in  very  ancient  times 
wise  men  chose  to  veil  their  philosophical  opinions,  neither 
are  they  mythi,  or  histories  intermingled  with  mythi,  such 
as  other  nations  relate  concerning  their  earliest  ages ;  but 
they  are  true  histories.  This  will  be  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing considerations. 

"  These  relations  were  committed  to  writing  nearly  a 
thousand  years  before  the  mythi  of  the  most  ancient  nations. 
But  in  those  remote  times,  the  ordinary  life  of  man  extended 
to  so  great  a  length,  that  there  could  be  no  necessity  for  oral 
tradition  to  pass  through  the  mouths  of  many  generations. 
Methuselah  was  contemporary  with  Adam  during  the  first 
two  hundred  and  forty-three  years  of  his  life,  and  with  Noah 
during  the  last  six  hundred,  and  Noah  with  Abraham  fifty- 
eight  years.  Thus  three  generations  would  have  transmitted 
the  account  of  the  creation  of  the  world  to  Abraham.  The 
histories  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  were  committed  to 
writing  not  long  after  their  times,  and  from  Jacob  to  Moses 
it  would  seem  that  only  four  generations  intervened.*    Some, 

*  It  is  a  common  opinion,  that  in  Ex.  vi.  14 — 19,  some  generations 
are  omitted,  because  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  make  thirteen  gene- 
rations instead  of  four.  But,  as  in  Gen.  xv.  13,  16,  four  generations  are 
in  express  terms  made  equivalent  to  four  hundred  years,  and  as  the  two 
hundred  and  fifteen  years  which  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  spent  in 
Canaan  occupied  only  two  generations,  it  is  evident  that  a  generation  at 


68  INTRODUCTION. 

indeed,  have  considered  the  longevity  which  is  ascribed  to 
the  men  of  the  first  ages  of  the  w^orld  as  a  mythus,  simply 
because  they  imagined  it  to  be  impossible  that  the  human 
body  should  subsist  so  many  years.  But  no  reasonable  per- 
son will  maintain  that  everything  was  the  same  in  those 
early  ages,  especially  before  the  deluge,  as  it  is  now.  Why, 
then,  must  the  age  of  man  have  necessarily  been  the  same 
at  that  time  as  at  present?     All  other  nations  extend  the 

that  time  comprehended  a  hundred  years,  and  not  merely  thirt^'-four,  as 
was  the  case  at  a  much  later  period. 

Thus  Dr.  Jahn.  And  the  remark  may  be  correct.  But  it  ought  to 
be  considered  that  a  principle  which  would  be  applicable  to  the  time  of 
Abraham,  would  hardly  suit  that  of  Moses,  when  the  period  of  human 
life  had  been  greatly  abridged.  The  truth  is,  there  is  difficulty  con- 
nected with  the  question  how  long  the  Israelites  remained  in  Egypt. 
In  favour  of  the  shorter  period  of  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years,  it  may 
be  said,  that  this  agrees  best  with  St.  Paul's  remark  in  Gal.  iii.  17,  that 
"  the  law  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  the  promise ;"  that 
this  space  accords  with  the  reading  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and 
Septuagint  version  in  Ex.  xii.  40,  which  add  the  clause  "and  in  the 
land  of  Canaan,"  which  is  not  in  the  Hebrew.  Compare  the  following 
texts  in  Genesis,  which  show  that  the  space  of  time  between  Abraham's 
removal  from  Haran  and  Jacob's  descent  to  Egypt  was  two  hundred  and 
fifteen  years  :  xii.  4  ;  xxi.  5  ;  xxv.  26  ;  xlvii.  9.  This  view  corresponds 
best  with  the  genealogy  in  Ex.  vi.  and  Num.  xxvii.  1.  It  would  seem 
also  from  Num.  xxvi.  59,  that  the  mother  of  Moses  was  the  daughter 
of  Levi. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  favour  of  a  residence  of  four  hundred  or  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years,  the  express  declarations  in  Gen.  xv.  13,  can- 
not be  set  aside.  Comp.  also  Acts  vii.  6.  The  Hebrew  of  Ex.  xii.  60, 
is  also  exceedingly  strong,  and  the  addition  of  the  Samaritan  and  Sep- 
tuagint have  the  appearance  of  a  gloss  designed  to  remove  a  supposed 
difficulty.  St.  Paul  may  be  allowed,  in  a  matter  which  had  no  bearing 
on  his  argument,  to  follow  the  Septuagint,  as  best  known  to  the  mass  of 
his  readers. 

The  genealogy  of  Joshua  in  1  Chron.  vii.  20 — 27,  which  descends 
from  Ephraim  through  ten  generations  at  least,  corresponds  best  with 
the  longer  period.  The  difficulty  from  Num.  xxvi.  59,  is  examined  by 
Perizonius  in  his  jEgyptiacsD  Origines,  cap.  xx.  p.  356  ss. ;  but  he  has 
not  succeeded  in  satisfactorily  removing  it. 


INTRODUCTION.  69 

lives  of  the  first  inhabitants  of  earth  to  some  thousands  of 
years ;  the  records  in  Genesis,  therefore,  which  give  a  far 
more  moderate  duration  of  existence,  are  not  to  be  suspect- 
ed of  falsehood  in  this  particular.  The  ancient  worthies 
esteemed  the  patriarchal  accounts  of  very  great  importance, 
as  the  groundwork  and  witness  of  their  religion  ;  as  such 
they  taught  them  to  their  children,  and  in  old  age  frequently 
repeated  the  oft-told  story,  so  that  there  could  be  little  dan- 
ger of  the  narrative  being  misunderstood  or  designedly  cor- 
rupted. Such  parts  as  had  been  clothed  in  verse,  vestiges 
of  which  occur  in  Gen.  iv.  23,  24,  would  be  the  more  easily 
retained  in  memory,  and  could  not  be  altered  without  inju- 
ring the  parallelism  or  disturbing  the  harmony;  and  this 
■would  lead  to  the  observation  and  correction  of  the  error. 

"  The  events  related  are  fewer,  and  the  narratives  less  full, 
and  perhaps  more  obscure  in  proportion  to  the  antiquity  of 
the  accounts  and  the  length  of  time  during  which  they  were 
preserved  by  tradition ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  those  which 
are  the  most  modern  are  also  the  most  complete.  From 
this  it  is  evident  that  the  compiler  or  author  of  Genesis  must 
have  rejected  all  uncertain  and  suspicious  accounts,  very 
many  of  which  had  doubtless  come  down  from  a  period  of 
considerable  antiquity,  and  must  have  received  those  only 
the  correctness  of  which  was  unquestionable. 

"  Further,  the  subjects  of  the  narrative  are  of  the  simplest 
kind,  and  altogether  dissimilar  to  those  which  fill  the  earli- 
est histories  of  other  nations.  If  in  any  respects  a  slight 
similitude  is  discoverable,  it  is  still  evident  that  the  latter  are 
feigned  or  amplified  and  distorted  by  fictions,  while  the  for- 
mer exhibit  merely  the  simple  truth.  This  was  acknow- 
ledged, without  any  hesitation,  by  the  heathen,  whether 
learned  or  unlearned,  who  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity 
turned  from  the  contemplation  of  their  own  fables  to  that  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures.     Besides,  those  doubtful  or  partly 


70  INTRODUCTION. 

fictitious  narrations,  or,  if  the  definition  be  preferred,  philo- 
sophical opinions  clothed  in  allegorical  language,  which  are 
known  by  the  name  of  mythi,  are  single  fragments,  which 
have  no  real  connexion  either  among  themselves  or  with 
genuine  history.  But  the  accounts  in  the  book  of  Genesis 
are  indissolubly  connected  with  each  other  and  with  history 
in  general.  The  mythi  abound  with  fictions  relating  princi- 
pally to  gods  and  goddesses  and  demigods,  to  their  wars, 
and  even  to  their  obscene  and  sexual  intercourse.  They 
relate  to  demons,  heroes,  nymphs,  and  metamorphoses,  also 
to  the  inventors  of  useful  arts  and  founders  of  noble  families, 
whose  origin  they  fabulously  ascribe  to  an  intermixture  of 
the  divine  with  the  human.  In  the  first  book  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, nothing  of  the  kind  is  to  be  found.  The  accounts 
which  it  contains  relate  only  to  one  God,  the  creator  and 
governor  of  the  universe,  and  the  preserver  and  guardian  of 
morals  and  religion,  to  the  establishment,  protection,  and 
promotion  of  which  they  are  devoted ;  and  they  hold  forth 
the  prospect  of  an  auspicious  and  blessed  period,  when  true 
religion  and  virtue  shall  be  propagated  among  all  nations. 
That  this  prediction  has  been  already  fulfilled  in  a  great 
degree,  is  undeniable  ;  and  past  accomplishment  encourages 
the  believer  to  anticipate  its  completion. 

"Should  it  be  granted  that  alterations  may  have  taken 
place  in  these  accounts,  yet  even  this  would  not  render  the 
character  of  the  principal  parts  on  which  the  history  rests 
suspicious.  Those  portions  which  might  be  supposed  to  be 
most  liable  to  suspicion  of  corruption  or  fiction,  are  such 
as  may  be  thought  to  border  on  the  marvellous,  such  as  the 
accounts  of  divine  revelations.  But  these  very  accounts  of 
revelations  contain  predictions  of  the  perpetual  duration  of 
the  religion  which  they  teach  among  the  posterity  of  its 
first  possessors,,  and  of  its  future  propagation  among  all 
nations,  which  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  authors 


INTRODUCTION.  71 

of  these  accounts,  whoever  they  were,  to  invent.  See  Gen. 
xit.  1 — 3,  xviii.  18,  xxii.  18,  xxvi.  4,  xxviii.  14,  xviii,  19,  and 
xvii.  4 — 14.  The  idea  of  God,  which  pervades  all  these 
records,  is  such  as  would  never  have  originated  with  unas- 
sisted man. 

"It  may  be  remarked  farther,  that  if  these  narratives,  like 
the  fabulous  accounts  of  other  nations,  had  been  altered  so 
as  to  suit  the  fancy  of  the  narrator,  they  would  have  dif- 
fered in  many  respects  from  their  present  form.  As  good 
morals  are  everywhere  inculcated  in  them,  the  immoralities 
and  facts  of  doubtful  character  which  now  occur  and  are 
certainly  but  little  honourable  to  the  principal  personages  of 
the  history,  would  have  been  omitted.  The  various  narra- 
tives which  appear  in  the  book  of  Genesis  would  not  have 
corresponded  so  accurately  with  the  nature  of  things  ;  the 
speeches  which  it  contains  (see  particularly  xliii.  1 — 14, 
and  xliv.  18 — 44,)  would  hardly  have  been  so  exactly  suited 
to  the  characters  and  situations  of  their  respective  authors; 
the  general  character  of  the  personages  would  not  have 
been  preserved  with  such  uniform  and  permanent  consis- 
tency, but  would  have  approached  occasionally  to  carica- 
ture ;  the  four  hundred  years  of  Gen.  xv.  30,  would  have 
been  changed  into  four  hundred  and  thirty,  to  correspond 
with  Ex.  xii.  40;  the  apparent  contradictions  would  have 
been  reconciled  ;  in  one  word,  the  whole  narration  would 
not  have  been  so  perfectly  consentaneous  to  the  general 
course  of  things  observable  in  other  histories.* 


*  "  Illustrative  of  the  manner  in  which  the  rationalists  exhibit  the 
statements  made  in  the  Bible,  and  endeavour  to  place  them  on  the  same 
footing  with  the  early  and  fabulous  accounts  of  other  nations,"  I  fjuote 
from  the  notice  of  Drechsler,  already  referred  to,  in  the  New  York  Re- 
view, p. 134, 135. 

"'  It  is  well  known,'  says  Von  Bohlen,  'that  all  the  nations  of  anti- 
quity possessed  accounts  of  the  early  history  of  mankind,  of  the  increase 


72  INTRODUCTION. 

"  The  arguments  which  have  been  urged  against  the  his- 
torical credit  of  the  documents  employed  by  the  author  of 
the  book  of  Genesis  do  not  prove  that  the  narrations  origin- 
ally given  in  these  documents  have  been  altered,  but  only 
that  they  may  have  been  ;  that  is,  in  effect,  they  prove 
nothing,  for  the  argument  from  possibilities  to  facts  is  void 
of  all  force.  He  attempts  to  show  that  the  narrations  con- 
tained in  these  documents  cannot  be  true,  are  entirely  futile. 
Such  is  the  assertion,  that  our  first  parents  could  not  have 
immediately  related  the  events  described  in  Gen.  ii.  4 — iii.  24, 

and  extension  of  the  human  race,  and  even  of  the  creation  of  the 
universe.  In  immediate  connexion  with  them  is  the  knowledge  of 
God,  his  being  and  attributes,  his  connexion  with  the  world,  and  par- 
ticularly with  men.  These  accounts  remind  us  of  a  period,  during 
which  God  or  divine  beings  came  down  to  earth,  walked  among  inen  in 
human  form,  trying  their  virtue,  promising  and  threatening,  rewarding 
and  punishing.  To  say  all  in  one  word,  most  of  the  eastern  nations 
possessed  writings  similar  in  their  contents  to  those  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  and  this  not  only  in  general,  but  often  in  particular,  and  even  in 
a  remarkable  degree.' 

"From  this  representation,  which  no  literary  man  thinks  of  question- 
ing, what  is  to  be  gained  ?  From  promises  like  these,  what  results  ? 
As  the  accounts  referred  to  are  undoubtedly  fabulous,  the  rationalist 
writer  infers  or  assumes  that  those  in  the  Old  Testament  are  of  the 
same  character.  A  more  direct  and  palpable  begging  of  the  question 
cannot  be  imagined.  It  is,  as  Drechsler  says,  a  logical  blunder.  The 
possible  suppositions  of  which  the  case  admits  are  three.  Either, 
several  of  these  different  accounts  contain  portions  of  historical  truth  ;  or, 
as  Von  Bohlen  thinks,  all  are  untrue  ;  or  one  alone  is  really  and  his- 
torically the  true  statement.  The  sober  and  rational  inquirer  will  not 
content  himself  with  assuming  that  condition,  which  his  prepossessions 
may  have  constituted  the  favourite  one  in  his  mind,  but  will  carefully 
examine  the  evidence  of  all,  and  admit  the  one  in  favour  of  which  the 
evidence   preponderates." 

To  maintain,  as  the  neological  party  in  Germany  have  done,  that  a 
narrative  must  be  fabulous  or  fictitious,  or  of  comparatively  late  date, 
because  its  contents  are  of  a  prophetic  or  miraculous  character,  pre- 
sumes the  impossibility  of  prophecy  or  miracle,  and  is  a  course  of 
procedure  utterly  unworthy  of  the  name  of  argument. 


INTRODUCTION.  73 

in  consequence  of  the  imperfection  of  their  language ;  and 
that  when  their  stock  of  words  had  increased,  they  could 
not  have  remembered  the  events  of  their  earliest  existence, 
because  without  words  nothing  could  be  retained  beyond 
an  obscure  recollection  of  things.  But  neither  of  these  as- 
sertions is  true.  For,  as  to  the  former,  our  first  parents 
were  -adult  in  the  first  moment  of  their  existence,  possessing 
the  use  of  all  the  faculties  of  their  minds,  and  of  all  the 
members  of  their  bodies.  They  had,  moreover,  both  the 
power  of  speech  and  incitement  to  its  use,  so  that  as  soon 
as  the  ideas  which  must  have  entered  their  minds  imme- 
diately upon  their  existence  were  conceived,  they  expressed 
them  in  language.  With  respect  to  the  other  assertion,  the 
ideas  produced  during  the  first  moments  of  their  existence, 
when  in  possession  of  all  their  intellectual  powers,  whether 
they  were  produced  by  the  impressions  of  the  senses  or  by 
the  instructions  of  the  Deity,  would  be  the  most  tenaciously 
retained  by  the  mind,  for  the  very  reason  that  they  were 
the  first ;  they  would  be  treasured  in  its  inmost  recesses, 
so  as  to  be  readily  recollected  during  the  remainder  of  life, 
and  easily  narrated  in  language  sufficiently  copious  at  any 
subsequent  period. 

"  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  doctrine  of  a  creating 
Deity,  and  consequently  that  of  the  creation  and  ori£:in  of 
all  things,  are  maintained  throughout  the  whole  of  the  book 
of  Genesis  ;  for  the  object  of  all  the  documents  employed 
in  its  compilation,  is  to  teach,  that  this  doctrine  was  revealed 
to  our  first  parents,  that  it  was  preserved  by  especial  divine 
providence  until  the  time  of  Abraham,  and  that  it  was  to  be 
preserved  and  at  last  propagated  among  all  nations.  The 
account  therefore  of  the  creation,  with  which  the  book 
commences,  inasmuch  as  it  coincides  with  this  general  ob- 
ject, is  not  a  fiction,  nor  a  poetical  description  of  the  creation, 
nor  a  philosophical  speculation  of  some  ancient  sage,  but,  as 
10 


74  INTRODUCTION. 

the  historical  tenor  of  the  whole  narration  shows,  a  real 
history.  And,  inasmuch  as  no  witness  existed  to  recount 
the  particulars  of  the  creation  of  the  earth,  it  is  evident  that 
the  matter  of  this  history  must  have  been  derived  from  divine 
revelation,  given  for  the  purpose  of  instructing  the  early  in- 
habitants of  earth,  in  the  manner  best  suited  to  their  capa- 
cities, that  there  is  no  divine  being  or  object  of  worship 
except  the  creator,  and  that  the  general  objects  of  creation 
were  destined  for  the  use  of  man,  so  that  they  are  not  divi- 
nities, but,  on  the  contrary,  he  is  their  Lord." 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 


The  Book  of  Genesis  is  divided  by  the  Jews  into  twelve 
larger  sections,  called  Pharshioth,  J1V1P"!3  ;  and  in  some 
copies  into  forty-three  snaaller  ones,  denominated  Sedarim, 
Q'^'l'lD.  Bat,  independently  of  this  division,  and  that  of  fifty 
chapters,  adopted  in  our  English  translation,  both  of  which 
are  arbitrary,  the  attentive  reader  will  perceive  another  in 
the  construction  of  the  book  itself  It  is  composed  of  eleven 
parts,'  each  of  which  has  an  appropriate  inscription  or  intro- 
ductory notice  of  the  subject  concerning  which  it  treats. 
They  are  as  follows:  Part  I.  chap.  i.  1 — ii.  3,  inclusive; 
II.  ii.  4— iv.  26 ;  III.  v.  1— vi.  8 ;  IV.  vi.  9— ix.  29 ;  V.  x. 
1— xi.  9;  VI.  xi.  10—26;  VII.  xi.  27— xxv.  11  ;  VIII.  xxv. 
12 — 18;  IX.  xxv.  19 — xxxv.  29;  X.  xxxvi. ;  XI.  xxxvii. 
1—1.  26. 

Part  I.     Chap.  i.  1 — ii.  3. 

The  first  part  contains  an  account  of  the  creation,  either 
of  the  visible  universe,  or  of  the  solar  system,  or  of  the  earth. 
If  tlie  sacred  writer  had  the  visible  universe  in  view,  as  is 
probable  from  the  general  nature  of  some  of  the  language 
employed,^  it  is  undeniable  that  in  the  details  he  confines 
himself  to  the  globe  which  we  inhabit.  Whether  the  first 
verse  is  an  introduction,  intended  to  state,  in  the  way  of  a 


76  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

general  proposition,  the  same  course  of  action  which  the 
subsequent  verses  specify, — or  whether  it  relates  the  origi- 
nal creation  of  the  mass  itself,  out  of  which  the  world  was 
formed  in  the  manner  and  order  afterwards  recounted,  it 
is  perhaps  impossible  to  say.' 

The  condition  of  the  earth  before  it  was  reduced  to  order 
by  its  almighty  maker,  is  described  as  one  of  confusion. 
Covered  with  water,  it  appeared  as  a  shapeless  mass,  without 
such  arrangements  and  provisions  as  were  necessary  to  fit  it 
for  the  reception  of  its  future  inhabitants.^  Preparatory  to 
this  result,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  represented  as  acting  on  the 
chaos,  impregnating^  the  dead  substance  with  the  princi- 
ples of  life  and  motion.  At  the  will  of  God,°  light  begins  to 
pervade  the  sluggish  mass  ;  and  by  the  rotatory  motion  of 
the  earth,  the  vicissitude  of  night  and  day  is  produced. 
v.  2—5. 

During  a  subsequent  revolution  the  vital  principle  still 
continues  to  operate.  From  the  watery  mass  vapors  arise 
and  the  firmament  presents  itself,  visibly  separating  the 
dense  fluid  below  from  the  lighter  aqueous  body  sustained 
by  the  clouds.  To  this  apparently  solid  substance,  God 
gives  the  name  of  heaven,  thereby  indicating  its  eleva- 
tion. 6—8.' 

On  the  third  day,  the  waters  which  still  continued  to 
cover  the  surface  of  the  earth,  are  made  to  flow  together 
into  their  vast  reservoirs,  and  thus  the  dry  ground  and  the 
seas  are  formed. — Preparation  having  been  thus  made  by 
the  formation  of  light,  of  atmospheric  air,  and  of  earth  suita- 
bly separated  from  the  water,  life  is  called  into  existence. 
The  earth  teems  with  its  various  productions,  and  the  once 
waste  and  desert  surface  exhibits  the  varied  beauties  of 
arranged  nature  in  all  its  vegetable  kingdom.  9 — 13. 

The  fourth  day  presents  to  the  supposed  observer  of  pro- 
gressive creation  the  effect  of  the  same  vital  action  which 


ANALYSTS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  77 

had  been  going  on  from  the  commencement.  The  Hght 
which  on  the  first  day  had  begun  to  penetrate  the  dark 
chaotic  mass,  and  which  the  separation  of  the  fluids  after- 
wards increased,  bursts  forth  in  its  pure  unveiled  brilHancy. 
In  the  now  cleared  up  vault  of  heaven  the  glorious  sun  ap- 
pears, the  great  lord  of  day ;  also  the  moon,  evidently  the 
inferior  luminary,  which  is  poetically  represented  as  the 
queen  of  night,  attended  by  her  innumerable  train,  the  stars. 
According  to  the  principle  which  evidently  governs  the 
writer  in  the  whole  narrative  of  the  creation,  the  heavenly 
bodies  are  said  to  be  made  for  the  benefit  of  the  future  in- 
habitants of  this  globe,  as  signs  to  designate  various  periods 
of  time,  and  also  as  luminaries  to  enlighten  the  earth.  And 
this  representation  is  repeated.  14 — 19.* 

Animal  life  now  appears.  Fishes  and  birds  of  difierent 
kinds  are  created  on  the  fifth  day,  and  on  the  sixth  the 
various  creatures  which  the  earth  sustains  on  its  surface. 
20—25. 

In  the  account  of  man's  formation,  the  language  used 
indicates  somewhat  more  of  solemnity,  of  dignified  deli- 
beration, than  that  before  employed.  Heretofore  we  read 
of  every  thing  called  into  being :  "  and  God  said,  let"  this 
or  that  take  place,  and  the  effect  follows  the  expression 
of  his  will.  But  now  the  variation  is  striking :  "  and  God 
said,  let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness.'" 
The  creation  follows,  and  man  appears,  the  noblest  of  earth's 
inhabitants,  the  lord  of  this  lower  world,  endowed  with  im- 
mortality, and  in  moral  character  holy,  like  his  maker. 
26 — 28.'°  This  is  followed  by  the  grant  of  vegetables  and 
fruits  to  be  used  as  food  by  all  the  animal  creation.  29,  30.'* 
The  almighty  creator  surveys  the  workmanship  of  his  hands, 
and  pronounces  every  thing  to  be  good.  The  sixth  day 
attests  that  all  is  finished.  31. 

The  section  concludes  by  instructing  us,  that,  inasmuch  as 


78  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

God  had  completed  his  M-ork,  he  sanctified  the  seventh  day, 
in  memory  of  the  glorious  result,  ii.  1 — 3." 

Part  II.     Chap.  ii.  4 — iv.  26. 

We  are  here  presented  with  an  account  of  the  state  of  the 
world  immediately  after  its  creation,  together  with  some 
highly  interesting  and  important  facts  relating  to  the  early 
history  of  man. 

At  the  time  of  the  creation,  vegetable  productions  did  not 
spring  from  the  ground,  through  the  influence  of  rain  and 
human  industry,  but,  as  the  text  implies,  by  a  direct,  divine 
power.  Since  that  period,  nature  has  taken  its  ordinary 
course.  Mists  have  risen  from  the  ground,  and  have  come 
down  in  refreshing  showers,  and  man,  formed  of  the  earth 
and  endowed  with  a  divinely  communicated  principle  of  life, 
has  cultivated  the  soil.  4 — 7.'^  The  narration  now  pro- 
ceeds to  tell  us  of  the  settlement  of  man  in  the  garden  of 
Eden,  particularly  mentioning  its  two  most  important  pro- 
ductions, the  tree  of  life,  and  the  tree  of  knowledge.  The 
former  seems  to  have  derived  its  name  from  its  properties  in 
continuing  life,  plainly  alluded  to  in  iii.  22 ;  and  the  latter, 
from  the  practical  knowledge  of  evil  in  contradistinction  to 
good,  which  unhappily  flowed  from  its  use,  which  is  inter- 
dicted under  the  penalty  of  death.'*  A  river  is  said  to  have 
supplied  the  garden  with  water,  and  hence  to  have  formed 
four  principal  streams,  which  are  named  and  otherwise  ge- 
ographically designated.'"  The  acconmiodation  of  the  man 
with  a  companion  adapted  to  his  nature  and  wants,  is  closely 
connected  with  his  examining  and  naming  the  various  ani- 
mals, none  of  whom  was  sufficiently  dignified  to  become  the 
spouse  of  creation's  lord.  From  the  substance  of  the  man 
himself  the  woman  is  created  by  almighty  power,  and  he 
recognizes  her  as  a  fit  companion,  expressing  the  depth  of  his 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  79 

affection  by  identifying  her  with  his  own  person."  Imme- 
diately the  historian  declares  the  inviolable  character  of  the 
marriage  union,  to  which  every  other  relationship,  even 
that  of  parent  and  child^  must  yield  precedence."'  He  sub- 
joins an  intimation  of  the  primaeval  purity  of  the  first 
pair.  8 — 25. 

In  the  third  chapter  we  have  an  account  of  the  fall  of  our 
first  parents  from  the  state  of  innocence  in  which  they  were 
created. '*     The  devil,  either  assuming  a  serpent  as  his  in- 
strument, or  allegorically  represented  under  the  figure  of  a 
serpent,'"  (an  animal  considered  by  the  ancients  as  particu- 
larly prudent  and  cunning,  and  therefore  selected  as  best 
fitted  for  the  purpose,)  tempts  the  woman  to  disregard  the 
prohibition  of  the  use  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil,  by  assuring  her  that  the  threatened  consequences 
should  not  take  place,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  use  of 
the  fruit,  so  excellent  in  itself  and  so  beautiful   in  appear- 
ance, would  impart  a  divine  wisdom,  enabling  the  partaker 
to  discriminate  between  good  and  evil.     The  woman  yield- 
ed to  the  temptation ;  and,  at  her  offer,  the  man  also  ate  of 
the  fruit  and  transgressed  the  divine  law.  1—6.     The  la- 
mentable effects  immediately  follow.     Their  knowledge  is 
indeed  increased,'^"  but  it  is  a  practical  knowledge  of  sin  and 
misery.     They  are  conscious  of  the  loss  of  purity,  and  en- 
deavor to  remove  their  sense  of  shame,  by  resorting  to  a 
rude  covering  of  intertwined  boughs  of  the  fig-tree.     At  the 
approach  of  their  almighty  father  towards  the  evening,  a 
sense  of  guilt  leads  them  to  the  silly  attempt  to  conceal 
themselves  from  the  Omniscient.     But  it  is  impossible  to 
escape   his   investigation.     He  examines   the   facts  of  the 
case,  and  passes  sentence  on  all  the  parties.     In  the  first 
place,  the  tempter  himself  is  condemned  to  a  state  of  utter 
degradation  and  servility ;   perpetual  enmity  between  his 
race  and  that  of  the  woman  is  to  be  established ;  although 


80  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

he  shall  be  permitted  to  injure  the  latter  in  an  inferior  de- 
gree, yet  in  the  end  it  shall  completely  destroy  his  energy 
and  power,"  Next,  the  sentence  of  the  woman  is  an- 
nounced ;  subjection  to  the  man,  and  pains  and  distresses 
peculiar  to  the  female  sex.  Lastly,  the  punishment  of  the 
man  is  declared.  The  ground  must  be  cultivated  with  hard 
and  incessant  toil ;  its  natural  productions  shall  be  thorns ; 
the  path  of  life  shall  be  chequered  with  sorrows,  till  at  last 
death  closes  the  scene,  and  the  body,  forsaken  by  the  soul, 
the  animating  breath  of  the  Almighty,  degenerates  into  its 
original  dust.  7 — 19."  The  history  then  mentions  the  name 
given  by  Adam  to  his  wife  and  the  reason  of  it;"  and  states, 
that,  by  divine  direction,  they  were  both  clothed  with  the 
skins  of  animals."  It  closes  by  relating  their  expulsion  from 
Paradise,  and  the  means  adopted  to  prevent  their  access  to 
the  tree  of  life." 

The  history  of  the  fall  is  succeeded  by  a  narrative,  which 
strikingly  depicts  its  natural  consequences,  by  exhibiting  the 
deformity  of  sin.  Cain  and  Abel,  two  of  the  children  of  our 
first  parents,"  are  represented  as  bringing  their  offerings  to 
God,  each  selecting  for  the  token  of  his  homage  a  portion  of 
the  fruits  of  his  industry  in  his  respective  avocation.  That 
of  the  former  was  rejected  because  of  his  wickedness,  while 
the  faith  of  the  latter  secured  its  acceptance."  The  divine 
impartiality,  (Acts  x.  34, 35,)  and  the  warning  and  exhortation 
accompanying  it,^'  produced  no  good  effect  on  the  mind  of 
Cain.  On  the  contrary,  he  yielded  to  the  impulse  of  uncon- 
trolled passion,  and  murdered  his  brother,  iv.  1 — 8.  Di- 
vine justice  inquires  into  the  crime,  which  the  fratricide  at- 
tempts to  conceal  by  a  falsehood,  expressed  with  that  inso- 
lence which  sometimes  characterizes  persons  who  are  under 
the  influence  of  the  "  wicked  one."  But  in  vain.  The  atro- 
city of  the  deed  demands  punishment.  The  very  earth  feels 
the  unnaturalness  of  the  act,  and  drinks  in  the  murdered 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  81 

brother's  blood,  endeavoring  to  hide  the  shame  of  her  un- 
worthy son.  At  the  same  time,  her  detestation  of  the  act  is 
shown,  by  refusing  to  bless  the  murderer.  To  such  a 
wretch  earth  will  not  yield  its  strength,  and,  without  a  habi- 
tation or  subsistence,  he  becomes  "  a  vagabond."  9 — 12. 
The  unhappy  culprit  feels  the  wretchedness  of  his  condition. 
Whether  he  laments  the  severity  of  his  punishment  or  the 
"  exceeding  sinfulness"  of  his  crime,  may  be  uncertain  ;  but 
it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  that  some  penitential  character 
must  have  been  perceived  by  the  searcher  of  hearts  before 
he  threatened  seven-fold  vengeance  on  the  man  who  should 
take  the  life  of  Cain.  So  great  is  the  wretched  fratricide's 
distress,  that  his  faith  in  the  divine  promise  of  protection 
is  confirmed  by  a  sign,  which  was  probably  miraculous. 
13 — 15.^'  Still,  this  does  not  prevent  Cain's  banishment. 
He  settles  in  a  country,  which,  perhaps,  derived  its  name 
from  the  fact  of  his  expulsion.'"  There  he  becomes  the 
father  of  Enoch,  the  ancestor  of  Lamech ;  the  descendants 
of  whose  two  wives  are  particularly  distinguished.  Those 
of  the  one  are  noted  for  the  skill  with  which  they  pur- 
sued pastoral  occupations,  and  refined  society  by  musi- 
cal inventions  and  improvements ;  while  those  of  the  other 
became  "  artificers  in  brass  and  iron,"  thus  contributing  to 
the  progress  of  those  arts  which  make  human  life  comforta- 
ble and  easy.  16 — 22.  Some  unknown  circumstances  ap- 
pear to  have  given  uneasiness  to  Lamech's  wives,  whom  he 
comforts  with  the  assurance,  that  he  was  exposed  to  no 
danger,  and  that  any  attempt  on  his  life  would  not  fail  to 
draw  down  the  severest  judgments.  23,  24."  After  noticing 
the  birth  of  Seth,  whom  maternal  piety  and  affection  regard 
as  a  substitute  for  the  lost  Abel,  and  the  birth  also  of  a  son 
to  Seth,  this  part  of  the  book  concludes  with  the  statement, 
that  public  worship  then  began  to  be  celebrated  in  honor  of 
11 


82  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

Jehovah,  in  contradistinction  probably  to  incipient  idolatry. 
25,  26.'' 

Part  III.     Chap.  v.  1 — vi.  9. 

This  part  begins  with  a  genealogical  list  of  Adam's"  des- 
cendants to  Noah  through  the  line  of  Seth.  vi.  32."  Among 
the  most  remarkable  is  Enoch,  alike  distinguished  for  his 
exalted  piety,  and  its  extraordinary  revv^ard,  an  early  trans- 
lation to  God  without  subjection  to  death.  22 — 24.'"  The 
curse  of  toilsome  labor  denounced  against  Adam,  iii.  17, 
seems  to  have  been  particularly  oppressive  to  Lamech ; 
and,  either  in  the  prospect  of  assistance  to  be  obtained  from 
his  son's  co-operation  in  cultivating  the  soil,  or  in  the  hope 
that  his  son's  labors  might  lead  to  an  increase  of  piety,  and 
thus  lessen  or  remove  that  part  of  the  penal  consequences 
of  the  first  transgression,  he  gives  him  a  name  expressive  of 
the  rest  and  comfort  which  he  hoped  to  attain.  29.'" — If  the 
patriarch  did  indulge  this  hope,  subsequent  events  showed 
its  utter  fallacy.  The  degeneracy  of  mankind  seems  to 
have  kept  pace  with  their  increase.  Descendants  of  the 
pious,  associates  of  the  people  of  God,  intermarried  with 
those  of  an  opposite  character,  allured  by  beauty  and  go- 
verned by  inclination,  vi.  1,  2."  As  might  be  expected,  the 
divine  judgment  is  threatened,  while  at  the  same  time  space 
is  allowed  for  repentance.  3.'"  Revolt  from  God,  lawless 
aggression,  and  proud  desire  of  human  distinction,  seem  to 
characterize  the  wickedness  of  that  period.  4,  5.'°  In 
language  adapted  to  human  feeling  and  comprehension,  God 
is  said  to  have  repented  that  he  had  made  man,  and  to  be 
grieved  at  the  heart.  He  determines  to  destroy  the  aban- 
doned ingrates,  while  he  spares  the  righteous  Noah.  6 — 8. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  83 


Part  IV.     Chap.  vi.  9— xi.  29. 

This  portion  is  introduced  by  an  inscription  stating  it  to 
be  the  history  of  Noah.  The  principal  point  in  the  narra- 
tive is  the  account  of  the  deluge.  The  general  wickedness 
of  men  requires  that  the  punishment  should  extend  to  the 
whole  human  race,  and  therefore  God  expresses  his  deter- 
mination to  cut  off  all  mankind,  and  to  lay  the  earth  waste. 
9 — 13."°  Noah  is  commanded  to  construct  an  ark  or  navi- 
gable vessel  of  cypress  wood,  of  capacious  dimensions* 
with  proper  apertures  for  the  admission  of  light  and  air. 
14 — 16."  While  the  devouring  element  is  to  destroy  the 
mass  of  living  creatures,  Noah  and  his  family  are  to  be 
preserved  in  this  vessel,  together  with  the  various  classes  of 
animals  which  would  otherwise  perish  in  the  waters.  Two 
of  unclean  and  seven  of  clean  beasts  are  the  numbers  speci- 
fied.*'*  These  are  introduced  into  the  ark,  certainly  not 
without  an  extraordinary  influence  of  divine  Providence, 
which  indeed  might  be  expected  under  such  circumstances, 
and  is  in  harmony  with  the  character  of  the  whole  trans- 
action. The  natural  causes  of  the  flood  are  stated  to  be  the 
incessant  torrents  of  rain  that  fell  during  forty  days  and 
nights,  and  the  vast  swell  of  the  ocean,  produced  doubtless 
by  the  operation  of  volcanic  and  other  agitating  elements  in 
the  bowels  of  the  earth.  "  The  fountains  of  the  great  deep," 
and  "the  windows  of  heaven,"  (vii.  11,)  express  these  causes 
in  language  beautifully  simple,  yet  highly  poetic.  The 
waters  covered  the  top  of  the  highest  ground  to  the  depth 
of  fifteen  cubits,  and  for  the  space  of  one  hundred  and  fifty 
days  continued  to  increase  and  to  desolate  the  earth. 
17— vii.  24. 

The  melancholy  condition  of  the  patriarch  may  well  be 
imagined;  but  the  divine  mercy  displays  itself:  "  God  re- 


84  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

membered  Noah."  What  a  beautiful  expression  of  parental 
affection  !  The  rain  ceases  ;  the  ocean  falls  back  into  its  deep- 
ened bed,  and  the  ark  rests  on  the  mountains  of  Armenia." 
With  unutterable  joy  Noah  beholds  the  tops  of  the  moun- 
tains just  beginning  to  show  themselves.  He  sends  out  a 
raven  ;  then  a  dove,  which  at  first  returns  as  she  went,  but 
afterwards  brings  back  in  her  mouth  the  "  olive  leaf,"  token 
of  peace,  and  proof  that  the  waters  had  subsided.  Sent 
out  a  third  time,  she  returns  no  more.  viii.  1 — 12. 

Now  the  ground  is  comparatively  dry,  and  Noah's  family 
leave  the  ark,  accompanied  by  its  numerous  inmates.     A 
solemn  act  of  devotion  marks  the  patriarch's  gratitude,  and 
is  graciously  accepted  by  his  almighty  preserver.     He  de- 
termines no  more  to  bring  such  a  destruction  on  the  earth. 
He  will  not  "  be  extreme  to  mark  what  is  done  amiss  ;"  for 
man's  earliest  imaginations  are,  like  his  nature,  evil.  13 — 22. 
Then  follows  the  divine  blessing  bestowed  on  the  family  of 
Noah,  in  language  like  that  before  addressed  to  Adam,  (i.  28,) 
with  the  express  grant,  however,  of  animal  food,  the  blood 
or  life  excepted."     Capital  punishment  is  threatened  to  the 
murderer ;  and,  to  increase   man's  horror  at   the   taking  of 
human  life,  the  unconscious,  irrational  brute  is  to  bear  the 
penalty  of  his  unintentional  manslaughter.     The  dignity  of 
man's  nature,  created  originally  in  the  image  of  God,  is 
stated  as  a  reason  for  the  severe  penalty.     By  defacing  the 
divine  likeness,  the  murderer  attempts,  as  it  were,  to  mar,  if 
not  to  destroy  the   divinity  itself,  ix.  1 — 7."     The  promise 
before  made,  not  to  destroy  all  living  things  by  another 
flood,  a  promise  equivalent  to  a  solemn  agreement  made  by 
the  creator  with  his  creatures,  is  renewed  ;  and  the  rain- 
bow, which  probably  at  that   time   spanned   the  vault  of 
heaven,  is  made  the  sign  of  its  accomplishment.     The  pro- 
mise is  repeated,  in  token  of  perpetuity.  8 — 17. 

The  fact  of  Noah's  three  sons  being  the  sole  fathers  of 


ANALYSIS  OP  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  85 

the  second  world  is  then  distinctly  stated.  This  is  followed 
by  the  narrative  of  Noah's  planting  a  vineyard,  and,  on  too 
free  indulgence  in  the  wine,  through  ignorance  probably  of  the 
Strength  of  the  liquor,  becoming  intoxicated,  and  indecently 
exposed.  The  unfilial  behaviour  of  Ham,  and  the  pious  and 
modest  deportment  of  his  two  brothers,  becoming  known  to 
the  patriarch  on  his  awaking,  he  predicts  the  future  fates 
of  their  respective  descendants.  On  the  posterity  of  Ham, 
through  his  son  Canaan,  he  denounces  the  curse  of  de- 
graded servitude,  which  was  remarkably  verified  in  the 
future  history  of  the  Canaanitish  nations.  By  blessing  Je- 
hovah as  the  God  of  Shem,  he  implies  a  benediction  of  the 
highest  kind  on  Shem  himself,  inasmuch  as  the  "  people 
whose  God  is  the  Lord"  cannot  but  be  "  happy."  Ps.  cxliv. 
15.  To  the  posterity  of  Japheth,  he  promises  wide  and  ex- 
tensive territory  ;  and  the  progress  and  prodigious  increase 
of  numerous  colonies,  founded  by  Europeans  in  various  parts 
of  the  world,  have  for  ages  attested  the  truth  of  the  pre- 
diction, and  are  still  continuing  to  add  to  its  evidence.  The 
occupancy  of  territory  by  the  posterity  of  Japheth,  which 
was  originally  peopled  by  that  of  his  brother,  may  be  in- 
tended by  the  phrase,  "  he  shall  dwell  in  the  tents  of 
Shem" ;  but  more  probably  it  alludes  to  the  future  connex- 
ion of  the  descendants  of  each,  as  associated  together  prin- 
cipally in  religious  harmony,  by  the  union  of  Japheth's 
progeny  with  the  Hebrews  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah."' 
A  brief  notice  of  the  age  and  death  of  Noah  forms  the  con- 
clusion of  this  part  of  the  book.  18 — 29. 

Part  V.     Chap.  x.  1 — xi.  9. 

This  part  may  be  subdivided  into  two  sections.  The 
first,  X.  1 — 32,  is  a  brief  genealogical  notice  of  the  imme- 
diate descendants  of  Noah's  sons,  comprehending  also  cer- 


86  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

tain  nations  or  colonies  of  which  they  were  the  founders." 
The  historian  reverses  the  order  which  he  elsewhere  fol- 
lows, beginning  with  Japheth  and  ending  with  Shem.  He 
takes  particular  notice  of  Nimrod,  a  grandson  of  Ham,  who, 
by  founding  an  important  monarchy,  and,  according  to  the 
view  given  of  his  character  by  some  Eastern  historians,  by 
tyrannical  and  oppressive  conduct,  acquired  a  disgraceful 
and  unenviable  celebrity,  x.  1 — 9.'^ 

The  principal  cities  of  his  kingdom,  and  those  which 
were  perhaps  first  established,  were  Babylon,  Edessa, 
Nesibis,  and  Ctesiphon,"  (the  metropolis  of  Chalonitis,)  in 
the  country  of  Babylonia,  which  must  be  considered  as 
stretching  to  a  considerable  extent.  10.  In  connexion  most 
probably  with  the  history  of  Nimrod,  is  the  brief  notice  of 
Ashur's  emigration  from  that  country,  and  of  his  building 
three  cities,  the  principal  of  which  was  Nineveh,  11.^°  Shem 
is  introduced  as  the  ancestor  of  the  Hebrews,  and  as  the 
elder  brother  of  Japheth,  21.'°  The  division  and  settlement 
of  the  earth  are  mentioned  as  contemporaneous  with  Peleg, 
and  giving  rise  to  his  name.  25.  His  brother  Joktan's  des- 
cendants are  then  introduced.  26 — 32. 

The  second  section,  xi.  1 — 9,  contains  an  account  of  the 
confusion  of  the  one  language,  which  was  employed  by 
all  the  descendants  of  Noah.  A  body  of  men  travelling 
from  the  country  beyond  the  Tigris,'°  settled  in  the  plains  of 
Babylonia,  and  proposed  to  build  a  city  and  a  very  lofty 
tower,  with  the  view  of  acquiring  distinction  both  among 
their  contemporaries  and  with  posterity,  and,  by  forming 
themselves  into  a  strong  and  well  guarded  community,  to 
prevent  their  being  forcibly  dispersed.  1 — 4."  It  would 
seem  that  these  men  designed  to  oppose  the  divine  inten- 
tion, which  required  mankind  to  spread  themselves  in  various 
regions  of  the  earth.  But  God  determines  to  frustrate  their 
wily  project.     Sliould  this  first   enterprise  be  allowed  to 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  87 

succeed,  they  will  increase  in  hardy  rebellion,  and  go  on 
unrestrained  in  wickedness.  He  resolves  to  confound  their 
language,  and  thus,  by  awakening  suspicion  of  each  other, 
to  involve  their  scheme  in  utter  ruin.^*  The  consequence 
was,  they  were  widely  dispersed ;  the  projected  city  re- 
mained unfinished  ;  and  a  name  was  given  it,  indicating  the 
confusion,"  which  had  been  attended  with  consequences  so 
disastrous  to  human  arrogance.  5 — 9. 

Part  VI.     Chap.  xi.  10—26. 

We  have  here  a  list  of  Shem's  descendants  in  the  line 
from  which  Abram  sprang.  This,  together  with  that  which 
is  introduced  in  the  fifth  chapter,  completes  the  genealogy 
of  the  distinguished  Hebrew  patriarch,  whose  biography 
immediately  follows. ^° 

Part  VII.     Chap.  xi.  27— xxv.  11. 

The  sacred  writer  now  presents  us  with  the  history  of 
Abraham.  The  narrative  treats  of  the  immediate  ancestors 
of  the  Hebrew  nation,  and  is  therefore  more  particular  and 
diffuse  than  that  which  had  preceded  it ;  which  is  a  mere 
introductory  sketch,  intended  to  prepare  for  the  subsequent 
account.  This  part  begins  by  mentioning  the  birth  of  Abra- 
ham, and  ends  with  a  notice  of  his  death. 

Terah  the  father  of  Abram  removes  with  his  family" 
from  the  land  of  their  nativity,  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,"  a  dis- 
trict lying  in  the  north-eastern  part  of  Mesopotamia,  and  in 
modern  times  reduced  to  a  desolate  waste.  We  are  told 
that  their  place  of  destination  was  the  land  of  Canaan,  but 
that  after  reaching  Haran,  a  city  (or  district)  situated  in  the 
north-western  part  of  Mesopotamia  on  the  Euphrates,  they 
continued  there  until  after  the  death  of  Terah.'*  This  re- 
moval wa5^  made  in  consequence  of  a  divine  direction  com- 


88  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

municated  to  Abram,  which  was  probably  repeated  after 
his  father's  death."  It  was  accompanied  by  a  signal  bene- 
diction, involving,  among  other  promises,  the  coming  of  the 
great  descendant  of  the  patriarch,  the  Messiah,  with  bless- 
ings to  be  dispensed  to  all  mankind."  Abram  obeyed,  and 
he  and  his  party  left  Haran  and  went  to  Canaan,  xi.  27 — 
xii.  5. 

Entering  the  land  at  the  north,  they  gradually  advanced 
towards  the  south,  and  were  obliged,  in  consequence  of  a 
famine,  to  take  refuge  in  Egypt.  Apprehensive  lest  the 
beauty  of  his  wife  should  induce  the  Egyptians  to  put  him 
to  death,  in  order  to  secure  her  person,  Abram  represented 
her  as  his  sister.  Efforts  were  immediately  made  by  the 
monarch  to  procure  her  as  a  wife,  and  with  this  view  the 
patriarch  was  treated  with  great  kindness.  Some  divine 
inflictions,  the  nature  of  which  is  not  stated,  most  probably 
led  to  more  particular  inquiries ;  and  on  ascertaining  that 
the  supposed  sister  of  Abram  was  in  reality  his  wife,  she  and 
the  whole  party  were  honorably  dismissed.  6 — 20. 

On  returning  into  Canaan,  the  wanderers  were  obliged  to 
separate  into  two  divisions.  They  had  now  become  so 
wealthy,  and  their  flocks  so  numerous,  that  it  was  found  im- 
possible to  settle  in  one  spot.  It  is  evident,  from  the  tenor 
of  the  whole  narrative,  that  the  population  of  Canaan  was  at 
this  period  very  sparse.  There  were  indeed  several  nations 
already  settled  in  the  land,  dwelling  perhaps  in  towns  and 
adjacent  districts  ;  but  much  of  the  open,  champain  country 
was  still  unoccupied.  Abram  therefore  proposed  to  his 
kinsman  Lot,  between  whose  herdsmen  and  his  own  a  con- 
tention had  arisen,  probably  on  the  subject  of  pasturage,  to 
direct  his  course  to  whatever  region  should  be  agreeable  to 
him,  promising  that  he  himself  would  take  another  direction. 
Lot  chose  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  the  fertility  of  which,  on 
account  of  the  abundant  supply  of  water  which  the  river 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  89 

afforded,  is  expressed  by  comparing  it  to  the  garden  of  Eden 
and  to  Egypt."  The  natural  advantages  of  the  situation 
were,  however,  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  depravity 
and  wickedness  of  the  neighboring  citizens,  whose  conduct 
was  habitually  distressing  to  this  righteous  man.  2  Pet.  ii.  7, 
8.  On  the  removal  of  Lot,  God  renews  the  promise  to 
Abram,  that  his  posterity  should  become  exceedingly  nume- 
rous, and  possess  the  country  in  which  he  was  then  migra- 
ting. Immediately  after  this  communication,  the  patriarch 
fixed  his  residence  in  Hebron,'"'^  and,  "  as  his  manner  was," 
raised  an  altar  to  the  honor  of  the  Lord.  xiii.  1 — 18. 

Certain  eastern  kings,  among  whom  the  king  of  Persia 
appears  to  be  the  most  important,"'  wage  war  against  the 
kings  of  Sodom  and  the  cities  in  that  vicinity,  who  had 
thrown  off  the  yoke  that  for  twelve  years  had  oppressed 
them.  After  ravaging  the  neighboring  country,"*  routing 
and  destroying  the  inhabitants,  they  are  met  by  the  king  of 
Sodom  and  his  allies,  who  are  defeated  in  the  bituminous 
valley  of  Siddim.  Lot  and  his  family  fall  into  the  hands  of 
the  victors,  and  are  carried  off  as  captives.  One  of  the  pri- 
soners escaped,  and  informed  Abram  of  his  kinsman's  misfor- 
tune. Immediately  the  patriarch  armed  his  people,  natives 
of  his  own  establishment,  to  the  number  of  three  hundred 
and  eighteen,"'^  followed  the  retreating  foe  to  the  northern 
district  of  Palestine,  divided  his  party  into  two  bands, 
routed  the  victors,  pursuing  them  into  Syria,  and  recovered 
both  the  property  and  the  persons  that  had  been  seized  and 
carried  off.  On  his  return,  he  was  met  by  the  king  of 
Sodom,'"  and  also  by  Melchisedek.  The  latter  personage 
was  king  of  a  city  called  Salem,  and  also  a  priest  of  the  true 
God.  He  brought  with  him  refreshments  for  Abram  and 
his  army,  and  blessed  him  in  the  name  of  the  most  high. 
The  patriarch  received  his  benediction  and  gave  him  a  tenth 
of  the  spoils ;  thus  recognizing  Melchisedek's  superiority  and 
12 


90  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

also  his  sacerdotal  character."  With  commendable  libe- 
rality, the  king  of  Sodom  urged  Abram  to  retain  the  spoils, 
and  return  the  liberated  captives.  But  the  noble  generosity 
of  Abram  induced  him  to  decline  all  personal  advantage, 
xiv.  1 — 24. 

After  the  event  just  related  the  divine  promise  of  protec- 
tion and  blessing  was  renewed  to  Abram.  The  patriarch 
represents  to  the  Lord  that  he  is  likely  to  die  childless,  and 
a  stranger  to  inherit  his  estate."  But  the  assurance  is  given 
him  that  his  own  son  shall  be  his  heir,  and  that  his  posterity 
shall  be  countless,  like  the  stars.  Abram  believed  the  decla- 
ration, however  apparently  improbable,  and  was  accepted 
by  the  Lord  as  righteous,  on  account  of  his  faith,  xv.  1 — 6.^® 
At  his  request,  a  sign  is  given  him  in  order  to  strengthen  his 
confidence  in  the  promise  of  possessing  the  land  in  which  he 
sojourned.  He  is  directed  to  provide  a  sacrifice,  which  he 
prepares,  according  to  the  ordinary  and  perhaps  prescribed 
usage.  Towards  sunset,  he  falls  into  a  deep  sleep,  accom- 
panied by  great  distress :  he  is  informed,  that  his  posterity 
shall  reside  in  a  foreign  land,  and  be  afflicted  four  hundred 
years ;  that  the  people  whom  they  were  to  serve,  should  be 
severely  punished,  while  they  should  be  delivered  and  come 
out  greatly  enriched ;'"  that  he  himself  should  in  very  ad- 
vanced life  be  taken  to  his  fathers ;  and  that,  on  the  expira- 
tion of  the  fourth  age  or  century,*  his  descendants  should 
return  to  Canaan,  when  the  growing  iniquity  of  the  inhabi- 
tants would  require  the  divine  vengeance.  7 — 16.  A  smok- 
ing furnace  and  a  burning  lamp,  emblematic  perhaps  of  the 
aflOlictions  which  were  to  be  undergone  in  Egypt,  (compare 
Deut.  iv.  20 ;  Jer.  xi.  4,)  and  of  the  Almighty's  protection, 
consolation,  and  guidance,  which  were  to  be  extended  to  the 
sufferers,  (compare  Isa.  Ixii.  1  ;  Ps.  cxix.  105;  Job  xxix.  3,) 

*  See  the  note  in  Jahk's  Introduction,  p.  212. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  91 

passed  between  the  pieces  of  the  victims ;"  the  divine  pro- 
mise is  renewed,  and  the  whole  extent  of  country,  from 
Egypt"  to  the  Euphrates,  is  pledged  to  the  posterity  of  the 
father  of  the  faithful.  17—21. 

As  the  barrenness  of  Sarai,  Abram's  wife,  seemed  to  pre- 
sent an  insuperable  barrier  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise 
through  her,  he  is  induced,  by  her  suggestion,  to  have  inter- 
course with  her  Egyptian  maid  Hagar.  Contempt  and  in- 
solence on  the  part  of  the  servant  were  the  very  natural  re- 
sult ;  and  thus  the  impropriety  of  the  conduct  of  Abram  and 
his  wife,  and  the  mischievous  consequences  of  polygamy  or 
concubinage,  are  strikingly  illustrated.  Sarai's  harsh  usage 
led  Hagar  to  leave  her  mistress,  with  the  view  of  escaping 
to  her  native  country.  A  divine  communication  directs  her 
to  return  to  the  patriarch's  family,  and  promises  her  a  nu- 
merous offspring,  to  descend  from  the  son  of  whom  she  is 
soon  to  become  the  mother.  A  name  is  given  to  the  yet 
unborn,  indicative  of  God's  regard  for  his  people's  affliction. 
The  character  by  which  his  race  is  described,  indomitable, 
though  constantly  engaged  in  strife  and  opposition,  aptly 
applies  to  the  Arabs,"  his  lineal  descendants ;  whose  resi- 
dence is  also  geographically  pointed  out,  as  east  of  that  of 
the  Hebrews,  xvi.  1 — 12.'*  Hagar's  grateful  recognition  of 
the  divine  presence  and  blessing,  in  appearing  to  her,  and  at 
the  same  time  allowing  her  the  continued  use  of  her  bodily 
senses  and  vital  powers,  gives  rise  to  the  name  of  the  well 
or  spring  at  which  the  divine  appearance  took  place."  Re- 
turning to  Abram,  she  no  doubt  informed  him  of  the  parti- 
culars of  this  communication ;  and,  on  the  birth  of  the  ex- 
pected son,  he  called  his  name  Ishmael,  (b!^5')3tJ?';,  God 
will  hear,)  in  accordance  with  the  prediction  made  to  the 
mother.  13—16. 

This  is  followed  by  another  divine  appearance  to  Abram, 
in  which  the  promise  is  renewed,  accompanied  by  the  assur- 


92  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

ance,  that  his  posterity  shall  comprehend  many  nations ;  an 
assurance  which  implies,  that  true  believers  of  every  age 
and  clime  shall  be  regarded  as  his  spiritual  children,  and  be 
blessed  w^ith  him.  In  reference  to  this,  his  name  is  changed 
into  Abraham,"  and  circumcision  is  instituted  as  a  sign  and 
pledge  of  God's  covenant,"  with  the  threat  of  excision  de- 
nounced against  any  who  should  refuse  to  obey.  xvii.  1 — 14.'* 
A  slight  change  in  the  name  of  Abraham's  wife,  indicative 
either  of  a  numerous  progeny  or  of  some  increase  of  dignity, 
precedes  an  emphatic  benediction.  15 — 16.  At  the  promise 
of  a  son,  various  emotions  were  probably  excited  in  the 
bosom  of  the  aged  patriarch.  Joy  was  doubtless  predomi- 
nant ;  but  it  is  natural  to  suppose,  that  even  in  faithful  Abra- 
ham this  feeling  could  not  be  uniform,  and  that  some  degree 
of  distrust  would  occasionally  cloud  the  bright  view  opening 
before  his  faith.  Were  it  otherwise,  he  would  not  be  a 
model  of  human  virtue,  but  at  least  of  angelic  excellence. 
Hence  his  expressions  of  doubt,  and  his  prayer  that  Ishmael, 
the  child  already  born,  might  be  the  object  on  whom  the  divine 
blessing  should  descend.  17,  18,"  But  the  promises  are  to 
be  verified  through  another  son,  whose  name  indicates  his 
parents'  joy,  and  whose  birth  is  to  take  place  a  year  after. 
Ishmael  indeed  is  to  be  blessed  with  numerous  descendants, 
and  with  a  princely  race,  but  the  covenant  is  to  be  estab- 
lished with  Isaac.  19 — 22.  In  his  99th  year,  Abraham  sub- 
mits to  the  painful  rite  of  circumcision,  and  with  him  all  the 
males  of  his  family,  his  son  Ishmael  being  thirteen  years 
old.  23—27. 

Another  divine  communication  is  made  to  Abraham,  under 
very  remarkable  and  peculiar  circumstances.  He  is  sitting, 
in  the  heat  of  the  day,  at  the  door  of  his  residence  among 
the  oaks  of  Mamre.  Three  men  make  their  appearance,  to 
whom  he  offers  his  hospitable  and  respectful  attentions, 
xviii.  1 — 8.     At  first,  he  appears  to  regard  them  as  travel- 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  93 

lers,  as  Lot  also  did  the  two  angels  who  afterwards  went  to 
Sodom.  (See  xix.  1  ss.,  and  compare  Heb.  xiii.  2.)  But,  at 
the  inquiry  for  Sarah,  and  the  renewal  of  the  promise  of  a  son 
by  her  about  the  same  time  in  the  following  year,*"  he  doubt- 
less recognized  the  celestial  nature  of  his  guests."  Sarah  is 
reproved  for  her  want  of  faith,  indicated  by  her  laughter ; 
after  which  the  men,  as  they  seemed  to  be,  directed  their 
course  towards  Sodom,  respectfully  attended  by  the  patri- 
arch. 9 — 16.  The  divine  determination  to  communicate  to 
Abraham  the  approaching  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Go' 
morrah,  is  mentioned  as  a  consequence  of  his  fidelity  and 
obedience.  Encouraged  by  such  condescension,  he  pleads 
with  the  Lord  as  his  "  friend,"  (see  Isa.  xli.  8 ;  James  ii. 
23,)  and  secures  the  promise,  that  the  guilty  cities  shall  be 
spared,  even  if  they  should  contain  no  more  than  ten  right- 
eous persons.  17 — 33. 

In  the  same  evening  probably,  (compare  xviii.  33;  xix.  1, 
15,  27,)  the  two  angels  approach  the  gate  of  Sodom,  where 
Lot  was  sitting.  Yielding  to  his  importunity,  they  enter  his 
house  and  partake  of  his  hospitality.  Perhaps  the  human 
appearance  which  they  had  assumed  was  unusually  beauti- 
ful and  attractive,  as  the  vicious  inhabitants  assault  the 
patriarch's  residence  for  the  most  atrocious  purpose,  the 
execution  of  which  he  endeavors  to  prevent  by  an  offer, 
which  at  first  view  appears  scarcely  less  shocking.'"  The 
abandoned  wretches  become  enraged  that  a  mere  temporary 
resident  among  them  should  undertake  to  thwart  their  views, 
and  they  direct  their  attack  against  Lot  himself.  He  is 
rescued  from  injury  by  his  guests,  who  secure  him  in  the 
house,  and  smite  the  men  without  with  blindness,  xix.  1 — 11. 
They  then  communicate  to  Lot  the  purpose  of  God  to  des- 
troy the  place,  and  direct  him  to  remove  his  family  and 
connexions.     His  sons-in-law  disregarded  his  intreaties ;  and 


94  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

the  next  morning.  Lot  himself,  with  his  wife  and  two  daugh- 
ters, urged  and  assisted  by  the  angels,  leave  the  city  and  are 
directed  to  escape  with  all  possible  speed  to  the  mountain 
district.  At  the  earnest  solicitation  of  Lot,  he  is  allowed  to 
take  refuge  in  Zoar,  a  small  place  in  the  neighborhood, 
\vhich  is  saved  from  the  general  destruction.  12 — 22.  At 
sunrise.  Lot  enters  the  place  of  his  promised  security,  and 
the  cities  of  the  plain  are  entirely  destroyed  by  means  of 
thunder  and  lightning  sent  by  the  Lord.*'  The  patriarch's 
wife,  too,  looking  back,  and  perhaps  loitering  in  the  way  with 
the  hope  of  securing  some  valuable  portion  of  property,* 
contrary  to  the  divine  command,  "look  not  behind  thee, 
neither  stay  thou  in  all  the  plain,"  (v.  17,)  is  overtaken  by 
the  raging  tempest.  Suffocated  perhaps  by  the  vapor  of 
the  sulphur  and  bitumen,  and  encrusted  by  the  acrid  matter 
with  which  the  atmosphere  was  filled,  she  remained  a  monu- 
ment of  divine  displeasure." 

The  next  morning  Abraham's  attention  is  eagerly  turned 
towards  the  place  of  his  nephew's  residence,  the  destruc- 
tion of  which  is  but  too  surely  indicated  by  the  volumes  of 
thick  smoke  that  are  bursting  out.  But  his  piety  and  prayer 
had  not  been  forgotten :  "  God  remembered  Abraham,"  and 
saved  Lot.  Apprehending,  however,  a  renewal  of  the 
calamity,  which  must  make  Zoar  itself  insecure.  Lot  retreats 
farther  towards  the  mountains,  and  takes  up  his  abode  in  a 
cave,  accompanied  by  his  two  daughters.  Their  incestuous 
intercourse  with  him  after  they  had  made  him  intoxicated, 
results  in  the  birth  of  two  sons,  to  whom  names  are  given 

*  The  probability  of  this  representation  is  supported  by  the  words 
of  our  Lord  in  Luke  xvii.  30 — 32.  "  In  the  day  when  the  son  of  man  is 
revealed,  he  which  shall  be  upon  the  house  top,  and  his  stuff  in  the 
house,  let  him  not  come  down  to  take  it  away  ;  and  he  that  is  in  the 
field,  let  him  likewise  not  return  back.     Remember  Lot's  "wnfe." 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OP  GENESIS.  95 

which  express,  though  obscurely,  their  parentage.  From 
these  the  Moabites  and  the  Ammonites  derived  their  descent. 
27—38.'' 

The  history  now  proceeds  to  relate  an  incident  in  Abra- 
ham's life,  which  probably  took  place  some  time  before.** 
Removing  to  the  south  of  Palestine,  he  settled  for  a  time  in 
Gerar,  a  city  lying  in  the  lower  district  of  Philistia.  (See 
Gen.  X.  19,  and  xxvi.  1.)  Here  he  again  represented  Sarah 
as  his  sister,  apprehending  that  her  attractions  might  lead  to 
his  personal  injury.  Abimelech,  the  king  of  the  place,  took 
her  with  the  intention  of  making  her  his  wife  ;  but,  obedient 
to  a  divine  warning  communicated  to  him  in  a  dream,  ac- 
companied also  by  the  information,  that  Abraham  was  a 
sacred  person  who  had  intercourse  with  God,"  he  restored 
her  to  her  husband.  As  a  mark  of  respect,  he  added  valua- 
ble presents,  and  offered  the  patriarch  a  settlement  in  any 
part  of  his  country.  The  culpable  deceit  which  had  been 
practised  on  him  he  reproves,  with  remarkable  delicacy 
mingled  with  sarcasm  f^  and,  at  the  prayer  of  Abraham,  the 
distress  with  which  his  family  had  been  afflicted,  was  re- 
moved. XX.  1 — 18.** 

The  narrative  now  resumes  its  regular  order.  Sarah  be- 
comes mother  of  a  son,  whom  she  calls  Isaac,  in  allusion  to 
the  laughter  which  the  promise  of  his  birth  had  occasioned, 
and  the  joy  which  the  event  itself  produced,  (xvii.  17,  xviii. 
12 — 15,  xxi.  6.)  At  the  age  of  eight  days  the  child  is  cir- 
cumcised ;  and,  at  a  proper  time,  he  is  weaned.  As  this 
occasion  was  attended  by  unusual  festivity,  the  envy  of 
Ishmael  seems  to  have  been  excited,  and  he  shows  his  con- 
tempt for  his  father's  legitimate  son  and  favorite  by  some 
insulting  behaviour.^"  The  jealous  Sarah's  indignation  is 
roused,  and  she  requires  Abraham  to  dismiss  the  offender 
and  his  servant  mother.  The  patriarch's  great  reluctance 
to  comply  with  his  wife's  request  is  removed  by  a  divine 


96  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

communication,  directing  him  to  acquiesce,  accompanied 
with  the  promise  that,  although  his  distinguished  progeny 
should  descend  from  Isaac,  yet  his  son  by  Hagar  should  be- 
come the  ancestor  of  a  nation,  xxi.  1 — 13.  The  next  day 
Hagar  and  her  son  are  dismissed,  and  she  bends  her  course 
towards  Egypt.  She  seems  to  have  lost  her  way  ;  for  she 
is  represented  as  wandering  in  a  wilderness.  Ishmael,  a  lad 
of  about  thirteen  years  of  age,  becomes  exhausted,  and  his 
unfortunate  mother,  reduced  almost  to  a  state  of  desperation, 
places"  him  under  one  of  the  small  trees,  in  expectation  of 
his  speedy  death.  But,'  in  the  extremity  of  her  affliction, 
God  interposes.  He  renews  his  former  promise,  (xvi.  10,) 
directs  her  attention  to  a  spring  of  water,  which  she  had 
overlooked,  and  thus  rouses  her  drooping  energies.  Hagar 
and  her  son  take  up  their  residence  in  the  uncultivated  region 
of  Paran,  on  the  south  of  Palestine,  (Num.  xiii.  3,)  and,  in 
due  season,  she  procures  him  a  wife  from  her  native  country. 
14 — 21.  The  chapter  concludes  by  giving  an  account  of  a 
treaty  of  peace  and  friendship  entered  into  by  Abraham  and 
the  Philistine  king.  It  is  confirmed  by  a  mutual  oath,  made 
at  a  well,  that  had  been  dug  by  the  former,  and  forcibly 
seized  by  the  servants  of  the  latter,  without  his  knowledge. 
It  is  restored  to  the  rightful  owner,  who  consecrates  the  spot 
to  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  22 — 34. 

Some  time  after  these  transactions,  the  most  remarkable 
event  in  the  life  of  Abraham  took  place.  It  pleased  God 
to  subject  him  to  a  severer  trial  than  any  which  he  had 
himself  sustained,  or  which  has  ever  fallen  to  the  lot  of 
mortals.  He  is  commanded  to  go  to  the  mountainous  country 
of  Moriah,''  and  there  to  sacrifice  the  son  of  his  affection. 
Certain  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  direction,  the  man,  who 
was  already  so  distinguished  for  his  faith  and  obedience, 
complies.  Assisted  by  two  of  his  servants,  he  prepares  wood 
suitable  for  the  purpose,"  and,  without  delay,  sets  out  on  his 


ANALYSIS  OP  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  97 

melancholy  journey.  On  the  third  day  he  descries  the  ap- 
pointed place,  and,  informing  his  attendants  that  he  and  his 
son  would  go  some  distance  further  to  worship,  and  then  re- 
turn,"* he  proceeds  to  the  spot.  To  the  touching  question  of 
his  son  respecting  the  victim  to  be  offered,  he  replies  by  ex- 
pressing his  faith  that  God  would  himself  provide  the  sacri- 
fice ;  and  probably  he  availed  himself  of  this  opportunity  to 
communicate  the  particulars  of  the  divine  command.*"* 
Isaac  submits  to  the  will  of  God  thus  expressed,  and  is  just 
about  to  perish  by  his  father's  hand,  when  Jehovah's  angel 
interposes  and  prevents  the  fatal  stroke.  A  ram,  that  had 
become  entangled  in  a  thicket,  is  seized  and  offered ;  and  a 
name  is  given  to  the  place,  indicating  the  Lord's  gracious 
interference  in  relieving  his  faithful  servants  in  the  severest 
of  trials,  xxii.  1 — 14.*®  The  promise  before  made  to  Abra- 
ham, of  numerous  descendants,  superior  in  power  to  their 
enemies,  and  of  the  blessings  which  his  spiritual  progeny, 
and  especially  the  Messiah,  were  to  extend  to  all  mankind, 
is  again  repeated  and  confirmed  in  the  most  solemn  manner. 
Jehovah  swears  by  himself,  (comp.  Heb.  vi.  13,  17,)  that 
such  shall  be  the  reward  of  the  patriarch's  uncompromising 
obedience.  The  whole  of  this  extraordinary  transaction 
being  ended,"  Abraham  returns  with  his  son  and  attendants, 
to  his  residence  at  Beersheba.  15 — 19. 
,  The  historian  now  proceeds  to  mention  the  offspring  of 
Nahor,  no  doubt  with  a  particular  view  to  Rebecca,  who  is 
soon  to  appear  as  Abraham's  daughter-in-law.  20 — 24.  He 
then  gives  an  account  of  Sarah's  death,  and  of  the  negocia- 
tion  with  the  Hittites  for  a  sepulchre.  It  is  difficult  to  de- 
termine which  is  most  worthy  of  admiration,  the  beautiful 
simplicity  of  the  account,  or  the  noble,  benevolent,  and  truly 
gentlemanly  bearing  of  both  the  honorable  parties.  The 
field  of  Machpelah,  which  lay  east  of  Mamre,  is  legally 
secured  to  the  patriarch,  and  the  remains  of  Sarah  are  de- 
13 


98  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OP  GENESIS. 

posited  in  its  cave,  xxiii.  1 — 20.°^  This  is  followed  by  the 
equally  simple  and  interesting  narrative  of  the  successful 
effort  to  procure  a  suitable  wife  for  Isaac.  Abraham  sum- 
mons his  most  aged  servant,  and  requires  him  to  swear  by  a 
solemn  oath  not  to  marry  his  son  to  a  native  of  Canaan,  but 
to  resort  to  some  member  of  the  family  still  residing  in 
Mesopotamia.  On  no  consideration  is  Isaac  to  settle  in  that 
country.  The  Lord  under  whose  protection  he  himself  has 
ever  lived,  will  give  success  to  the  undertaking.  Should, 
however,  the  woman  applied  to  decline  the  oJBer  with  the  con- 
dition of  coming  to  Canaan,  the  conscientious  and  venera- 
ble servant  is  released  from  the  obligation  of  his  oath.-  xxiv. 
1 — 9.  The  whole  deportment  of  the  aged  domestic  in 
managing  the  trust  committed  to  him,  is  an  affecting  illus- 
tration of  his  extraordinary  worth.  Regard  for  his  master's 
interest  and  happiness,  and  the  most  unaffected  and  devoted 
piety  to  God,  are  plainly  the  governing  principles  by  which 
he  is  actuated.  Arrived  at  the  place  of  his  destination,  he 
stops  near  evening  at  a  well,  and  supplicates  the  God  of  his. 
master  to  crown  his  enterprise  with  success,  and  to  grant 
him  a  particular  token  to  that  effect.  With  devout  wonder 
he  is  soon  made  to  perceive  that  his  prayer  is  heard.  Re- 
becca, at  the  well,  refreshes  him  with  a  cooling  drink,  eases 
the  aged  man  of  the  labor  of  drawing  water  for  his  camels, 
and  invites  him  to  her  father's  house.  The  gratitude  of 
Abraham's  servant  expands  in  praise  to  Abraham's  God.. 
10 — 28.  On  the  invitation  of  Laban,  the  brother  of  Re- 
becca, the  servant  enters  the  house ;  but  no  considerations 
can  induce  him  to  take  any  refreshment,  until  he  has  made 
known  the  purpose  of  his  visit.  The  influence  of  a  kind 
Providence  is  too  clear  to  be  questioned,  and  the  consent  of 
both  father  and  brother'^  is  given  without  any  hesitation. 
Rebecca  declares  herself  willing  to  leave  her  native  land, 
and  to  settle  in  Canaan  as  the  wife  of  Isaac  ;  and  the  next 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  99 

day,  with  the  blessings  of  her  family,  she  accompanies  the 
faithful  messenger.  On  arriving  at  Abraham's  dwelling, 
she  becomes  the  wife  of  Isaac,  who  shows  the  respect  and 
affection  with  which  he  regarded  her,  by  appropriating 
for  her  reception  the  apartments  of  his  beloved  mother. 
29—67. 

The  preceding  detailed  account  is  followed  by  a  brief 
notice  of  Abraham's  marriage  to  Keturah,  by  whom  he  had 
several  children. ""'  Probably  these  and  Ishmael"'  were  ap- 
portioned by  him  in  his  life-time,  and  settled  in  the  east, 
apart  from  Isaac,  the  divinely  appointed  heir.  At  the  age  of 
one  hundred  and  seventy-five  the  patriarch  died,  and  was 
buried  by  his  two  eldest  sons,  in  the  cave  which  he  had 
purchased  from  the  Hittites.  xxv.  1 — 11. 

Part  VIII.     Chap.  xxv.   12—18. 

We  have  here  a  list  of  Ishmael's  sons,  the  twelve  princes 
whose  births  were  before  announced  to  Abraham,  xvii.  20. 
It  is  followed  by  a  notice  of  the  death  of  their  father,  and 
also  of  the  geographical  position  of  the  country  in  which 
they  lived,  east  of  that  afterwards  occupied  by  the  Is-. 
raelites.'"' 

Part  IX.     Chap.  xxv.  19 — xxxv.  29. 

This  part  resumes  the  history  of  Isaac,  and  continues  it 
until  the  period  of  his  death. 

The  faith  of  Isaac  in  the  divine  promise  of  numerous  off- 
spring was  subjected  to  a  long  trial.  At  last,  twenty  years 
(comp.  xxv.  20  and  26,)  after  his  marriage,  Rebecca  became 
pregnant  with  twins.  Agitated  and  distressed  by  her  situa- 
tion, she  utters  her  feelings  before  the  Lord.  The  divine 
answer  informs  her,  that  the  children  are  destined  to  become 


100         ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

the  progenitors  of  two  nations,  and  that  the  one  which  shall 
descend  from  the  first-born  shall  be  subject  to  that  which  is 
to  be  derived  from  his  younger  brother.  The  birth  of  the 
two  children,  which  takes  place  soon  afterwards,  by  verify- 
ing the  former  part  of  the  prediction,  becomes  a  pledge  of 
the  fulfilment  of  the  latter.  The  growth  of  hair  which 
makes  the  elder  remarkable,  and  unlike  ordinary  infants, 
suggests  an  appropriate  name,  and  the  circumstance  that  his 
heel  was  held  by  the  hand  of  his  brother,  gives  rise  to  the 
name  of  the  younger.'"  Esau  became  skillful  in  hunting 
and  out-door  exercises,  and  Jacob  was  a  religious  man,"* 
without  a  settled  residence.  The  former  was  his  father's 
favorite ;  the  latter  was  the  darling  of  his  mother.  19 — 28. 
But  little  is  said  of  the  early  history  of  these  sons  of  Isaac. 
The  only  fact  stated  is  by  no  means  honorable  to  either. 
While  Jacob  is  preparing  some  vegetable  food,  of  a  red 
color,  Esau  comes  home  from  the  field,  exhausted  with  fa- 
tigue, and  requests  his  brother  to  give  him  what  he  is  pre- 
paring. Jacob  requires  him  to  relinquish  the  privileges  of  his 
birth,  and  under  the  solemnity  of  an  oath,  in  which  unreason- 
able demand  Esau  seems  to  acquiesce  without  any  hesita- 
tion. The  food  thus  dearly  purchased  is  consumed,  and 
*'  profane"  Esau  thus  despises  his  birth-right.  29 — 34."' 

Another  famine  now  arose,  obliging  Isaac  to  take  up  his 
residence  in  the  country  of  the  Philistines,  which,  as  it  lay 
on  the  Mediterranean,  could  the  more  readily  be  supplied 
with  the  necessaries  of  life.  He  is  divinely  directed  not  to 
go  to  Egypt,  and  the  promise  before  made  to  his  father  is 
renewed,  xxvi.  1 — 5.  During  his  residence  at  Gerar,  he 
fell  into  the  same  weakness  into  which  his  father  had  twice 
been  betrayed,  and  represented  Rebecca  as  his  sister.  His 
deceit  was  discovered,  and  mildly  censured  by  the  king, 
Abimelech,  whose  character  and  conduct  appear  in  a  very 
advantageous  fight.  6 — 11.    The  prosperity  of  Isaac  natu- 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OP  GENESIS.         101 

rally  excited  the  envy  of  the  Philistines,  who  meanly  stopped 
the  wells  which  his  father  had  opened.*  Isaac's  increasing 
greatness  is  acknowledged  by  Abimelech,  who  is  thereby 
induced  to  request  him  to  leave  the  country.  He  complies, 
and  removes  out  of  the  immediate  vicinity.  On  opening 
certain  wells,  he  is  obliged  to  contend  with  the  herdsmen  of 
Gerar  more  than  once.  Led  by  the  amiable  feeling  of  con- 
cession, he  relinquishes  his  rights ;  and  when,  at  last,  all  con- 
tention ceases,  he  perpetuates  his  gratitude  by  giving  an  ap- 
propriate name  to  the  well,  which  his  dependants  were 
allowed  to  use  without  molestation.  12 — 22.  Hence  he 
removes  to  Beersheba,  and  receives  another  divine  promise, 
which  leads  him  to  a  public  avowal  of  his  religious  charac- 
ter. 23 — 25.  This  is  followed  by  the  notice  of  a  covenant 
entered  into  between  Isaac  and  Abimelech,  and  confirmed 
by  an  oath.  Hence  the  name  of  the  place,  where  the  ser- 
vants of  Isaac  succeeded  in  making  a  well  and  procuring 
water,  obtains  the  name  of  Beersheba,  that  is,  well  of  the 
oath.  26 — 33.  This  name  had  been  before  given  to  the 
same  place  by  Abraham,  (see  xxi.  31,  32,)  in  allusion  both 
to  the  seven  lambs  which  he  had  set  apart  to  be  received  as 
evidence  of  his  having  made  the  well,  and  also  in  reference 
to  the  oath  by  which  the  covenant  then  made  was  con- 
firmed."* A  notice  of  Esau's  marriage  with  two  Hittite 
women,  who  made  his  parents  exceedingly  unhappy,  closes 
the  chapter.  34,  35. 

The  next  contains  an  account  of  a  crafty  project,  formed 
by  Rebecca  and  carried  into  effect  by  Jacob,  to  deceive 
Isaac,  now  far  advanced  in  age  and  incapable  of  seeing. 

*  This  circumstance  is  very  far  from  being  trifling.  In  that  -warm 
climate  it  was  all  important,  and  particularly  for  nomad  shepherds,  to 
secure  an  abundant  supply  of  water.  A  contest  about  wells,  therefore, 
cannot  have  been  confined  to  the  time  of  Abraham  and  Isaac ;  it  must 
have  been  of  frequent  occurrence. 


102         ANALYSIS  OP  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

He  is  overheard  directing  Esau  to  procure  him  some  food, 
such  as  he  was  particularly  fond  of,  that  after  partaking  of 
it,  he  might  bestow  on  him  the  paternal  benediction.  The 
skillful  cunning  of  the  mother  contrives  to  pass  off  Jacob  for 
Esau ;  and  thus  the  aged  and  blind  patriarch  is  led  to  believe 
that  he  is  invoking  blessings  on  the  elder  son,  when  in  fact  it 
is  the  younger  whom  he  addresses,  xxvii.  1 — 29.  Scarcely 
had  he  left  his  father's  presence,  when  Esau  makes  his  ap- 
pearance with  the  viands  which  he  had  been  told  to  procure, 
and  requests  his  father  to  partake  and  to  bless  him.  The 
amazement  of  Isaac  shows  itself  in  great  agitation ;  and  in 
broken  accents  he  informs  his  distressed  son,  that  Jacob  had 
already  anticipated  him,  and  taken  away  the  blessing  de- 
signed for  himself.  Then,  recollecting  probably  the  divine 
communication  which  had  been  made  before  the  birth  of  the 
children,  that  the  posterity  of  the  elder  should  be  subject  to 
those  of  the  younger,  he  adds  the  emphatic  declaration, 
"  yea,  and  he  shall  be  blessed.'""  Still,  this  does  not  pre- 
vent the  affectionate  father  from  predicting  an  inferior  bless- 
ing on  his  first-born,  which  was  in  part  verified  by  the  revolt 
of  the  Edomites  from  the  control  of  Judah.  30 — 40.  (See 
2  Kings  viii.  20 — 22."")  Jacob's  successful  deceit  so  in- 
flamed the  passions  of  Esau,  that  he  expressed  his  determi- 
nation to  put  him  to  death,  as  soon  as  a  decent  time  of  mourn- 
ing for  his  father's  expected  decease  should  have  elapsed. 
This  threat  leads  the  watchful  mother  to  urge  on  her  son 
the  expediency  of  avoiding  the  fury  of  his  elder  brother,  by 
retiring  to  the  residence  of  her  uncle  Laban  in  Haran."" 
After  an  interview  with  his  father,  who  in  all  probability  had 
become  reconciled  to  the  result  of  the  late  conduct  of  his 
wife  and  younger,  son,  and  who  renews  in  his  presence  the 
prayer  for  the  promised  blessing,  Jacob  leaves  his  native 
place  for  Padan-aram,  or  Mesopotamia,  the  country  of  his 
forefathers.     He  is  allowed  to  depart  without  attendants 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OP  GENESI9.         103 

and  as  privately  as  possible,  with  the  view  perhaps  of  avoid- 
ing Esau's  immediate  notice,  and  in  the  hope  of  soothing  his 
exasperated  feeUngs.  After  the  departure  of  Jacob,  his 
brother,  apparently  with  the  view  of  gratifying  his  father, 
married  into  the  family  of  Ishmael.  Pursuing  his  solitary 
journey,  the  travelling  exile  must  have  felt  his  distressful 
situation.  Cut  off  from  the  long  enjoyed  satisfactions  of  a 
home,  and  thrown  on  the  world  a  stranger  and  comfortless, 
it  required  the  same  spirit  of  faith  which  had  distinguished 
his  grandfather,  to  prevent  him  from  sinking  under  the  bur- 
then of  his  difRculties.  To  relieve  his  anxious  mind,  the 
Lord  appears  to  him  in  a  dream ;  shows  him  the  intimate 
connexion  which  subsists  between  earth  and  heaven,  and 
that  "  divine  Providence  doth  govern  all  things  in"  both  ;"" 
renews  the  promises  made  to  his  father ;  and  adds  that  of 
particular  protection  to  himself,  with  safe  return  to  the  land 
of  his  birth  and  inheritance.  On  awaking,  he  expresses  his 
deep  sense  of  the  solemnity  of  the  place  ;  raises  and  anoints 
a  monument  in  commemoration  of  the  fact,  giving  to  the  spot 
the  appropriate  name  of  God's  house,  (Beth-el ;)  and,  by 
a  solemn  vow,  devotes  himself  to  the  Lord,  and  pledges 
the  tenth  of  his  future  property  in  token  of  his  sincerity. 
41— xxviii.  22."' 

Jacob  proceeds  on  his  journey,  and  arrives  at  the  resi- 
dence of  his  parents'  family.  His  uncle  Laban  receives  him 
with  kindness ;  and,  on  ascertaining  his  skill  in  pastoral  af- 
fairs, expresses  his  wish  to  secure  his  services,  xxix.  1 — 15. 
An  arrangement  agreeable  to  both  parties  is  immediately 
made,  in  consequence  of  which  Jacob  becomes  an  inmate 
of  the  family,  with  the  condition  of  marrying  Rachel,  the 
younger  of  Laban's  two  daughters,  as  a  compensation  for 
seven  years  of  stipulated  service.  On  the  expiration  of  this 
perod,"*  he  requires  his  uncle  to  ratify  the  agreement,  who 
cunningly  substitutes  his  less  attractive  elder  daughter  Leah 


104         ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

in  the  place  of  her  sister,  who  had  so  long  been  the  object 
of  Jacob's  affections.  He  endeavors  to  remove  his  kins- 
man's dissatisfaction,  by  pleading  the  usage  of  the  country 
not  to  allow  the  younger  daughter  to  marry  before  the  eld- 
er, at  the  same  time  offering  to  give  him  Rachel  also,  at  the 
expiration  of  a  week,  in  consideration  of  services  which  he 
should  render  during  a  second  period  of  seven  years.  Ja- 
cob acquiesces ;  and,  as  might  be  expected,  is  more  attached 
to  the  wife  of  whom  he  had  long  been  an  accepted  suitor, 
than  he  could  possibly  be  to  her  unsolicited  sister."' 
Through  the  influence  of  divine  Providence,  Leah's  unhap- 
piness  in  the  want  of  her  husband's  affections  is  mitigated. 
She  becomes  the  mother  of  four  sons,  to  whom  she  gives 
names  expressive  both  of  her  domestic  condition,  and  of  her 
thankfulness.  16—35."* 

In  the  mean  time,  the  favorite  wife  of  Jacob  is  un- 
blessed by  any  offspring.  Influenced  by  envy  and  an 
unconquerable  desire  to  be  honored  as  a  mother,  she  pro- 
poses to  her  husband  to  take  her  handmaid  Bilhah.  To  the 
first  son  thus  born  she  gives  a  name,  implying  that  God 
had  espoused  her  cause ;  and  the  second  she  designates  by 
a  term,  denoting  the  struggling  efforts  by  which  her  attempt 
to  vie  with  her  sister  had  become  successful."^  Her  exam- 
ple is  imitated  by  Leah,  whose  maiden  Zilpah  also  presents 
Jp-cob  successively  with  two  sons,  to  whom  her  mistress 
gives  names  significant  of  her  good  fortune  and  happiness. 
XXX,  1 — 13."°  The  inordinate  desire  of  these  women  to 
obtain  offspring  is  strikingly  depicted  in  the  account  which 
follows  of  Reuben's  mandrakes,  connected  with  which  is 
the  name  Issachar,"'  which  Leah  applies  to  her  fifth  son. 
Another  son  and  one  daughter  are  added  to  her  former  off- 
spring. 14 — 21.  Afterwards  Rachel  becomes  a  mother,  and 
calls  her  son  Joseph,  a  word  implying  increase.  22 — 24."* 
At  this  time  Jacob  communicates  to  Laban  his  intention  to 


ANALYSIS  OP  THE  BOOK  OP  GENESIS.  105 

return  to  the  place  of  his  nativity ;  but  his  father-in-law  is 
particularly  desirous  to  retain  him  in  his  service,  and  another 
arrangement  is  made  to  that  etfect.  That  portion  of  La- 
ban's  cattle  which  was  designated  by  particular  marks,  is 
separated  from  the  rest  of  the  flock  ;  and  it  is  agreed  that 
Jacob  shall  have,  for  the  reward  of  his  attendance,  such  of 
the  increase  as  shall,  notwithstanding  the  separation,  be  simi- 
larly marked.  By  a  stratagem,  he  contrives  to  effect  such 
births  as  would  in  the  greatest  degree  advance  his  interests. 
Thus  his  own  wealth  is  increased,  while  that  of  Laban 
diminishes.  25 — 43. 

The  advancement  of  Jacob's  fortune  at  the  expense  of  his 
father-in-law,  produced  the  dissatisfaction  which  might  have 
been  anticipated.  Jacob  observes  it,  and  is  directed  to  re- 
turn to  Canaan.  Aware  of  the  necessity  of  caution,  he  holds 
an  interview  with  his  wives  in  the  country,  at  some  distance 
from  their  father's  residence.  He  states  to  them  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case :  *  that  their  father's  feelings  towards 
him  had  changed,  although  he  had  served  him  faithfully ; 
that  his  compensation  had  been  repeatedly  altered,'"  under 
the  influence  of  interested  motives,  deceitfully  concealed ; 
that  divine  Providence  had,  notwithstanding,  protected  and 
blessed  him ;  (compare  v.  5,  7,  9 ;)  that,  indeed,  the  very 
stratagem  which  he  had  resorted  to  did  not  originate  alto- 
gether with  himself,  but  was  suggested  to  him  in  a  dream, 
by  the  same  divine  personage  to  whom  he  had  devoted  him- 
self immediately  after  the  communication  made  to  him  while 
on  his  journey  to  Mesopotamia.  And  now,  his  determina- 
tion to  return  to  Canaan  is  made,  in  consequence  of  a  com- 
mand issuing  from  the  same  divine  source.'  xxxi.  1 — 13."" 
The  daughters  of  Laban  acquiesce  in  their  husband's  propo- 
sal without  any  hesitation,  unscrupulously  accusing  their 
father  of  having  treated  them  unworthily  and  wronged 
them.  14— 16.''' 

14 


106         ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

After  making  all  necessary  arrangements,  Jacob  and  his 
family  leave  the  country,  avaihng  themselves  of  the  occa- 
sion of  Laban's  absence.  It  was  not  until  three  days  after, 
that  their  flight  became  known  to  him.  Immediately  he 
pursued  the  fugitives  with  highly  excited  feelings,  and  over- 
took them  at  Mount  Gilead.  A  divine  communication  to 
Laban  in  a  dream  prevented  a  directly  hostile  attack,  to  at- 
tempt which  he  was  no  doubt  afraid ;  but  he  met  his  son-in- 
law  with  an  angry  expostulation,  accompanied  by  a  sarcas- 
tic attack  on  his  filial  affection,  and  also  a  charge  of  robbery, 
founded  on  the  fact,  (unknown  to  Jacob,)  that  Rachel  had 
stolen  her  father's  teraphim.  17 — SO.'"  A  very  careful 
search  having  proved  fruitless,  Jacob  addresses  his  father- 
in-law  in  terms  of  indignant  reproach ;  tells  him  of  the  toils 
and  privations  which  he  had  undergone  in  his  service ; 
charges  him  with  wickedness  and  tergiversation;  and  as- 
cribes his  own  success-  to  the  superintending  providence  of 
the  God  of  his  fathers.  31 — 42.  Laban's  parental  feelings  are 
at  last  moved,  and  a  mutual  covenant  of  peace  is  proposed,  in 
which  Jacob  eagerly  acquiesces.  A  monument  of  stones  is 
erected  in  attestation,  and  named  by  each  of  the  parties  I'e- 
spectively  in  his  own  native  tongue.'"  A  sacrifice  to  G-od, 
followed  by  a  feast,  to  which  Jacob  invites  the  party  of  his 
relative,  closes  the  ceremonies.  The  next  moi'ning,  Laban 
takes  an  affectionate  farewell  of  his  children,  and  returns  to 
Mesopotamia.  43 — 55. 

Jacob  proceeds  on  his  journey,  and  is  met  by  angels. 
The  design  of  this  meeting  was  doubtless  to  console  and  en- 
courage him,  although  the  brevity  of  the  narrative  leaves 
this  to  be  inferred.  As  his  own  party  and  that  of  the  angels 
constituted  two  hosts,  (Mahanaim,)  he  applies  this  name  to 
the  place.'°*  He  then  sends  a  respectful  message  to  Esau, 
to  conciliate  his  favor.  On  the  return  of  his  deputation,  he 
learns  that  his  brother  is  advancing  towards  him  at  the  head 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  107 

of  four  hundred  men ;  and,  becoming  alarmed,  immediately 
takes  measures  for  the  safety  of  a  part  of  his  company,  at 
the  same  time  praying  for  divine  protection  with  character- 
istic humility  and  gratitude.  In  order  to  omit  no  act  of 
courtesy  which  might  favorably  impress  his  brother,  he  pre- 
pares a  noble  present  for  his  acceptance,  to  be  delivered 
with  suitable  expressions  of  inferiority  and  submission.  Still 
unable  to  repress  the  uneasiness  that  he  felt,  he  rose  up  at 
night,  with  his  wives  and  children,  and  passed  the  brook 
Jabbok,  with  the  view  of  putting  them  in  a  place  of  greater 
security,  xxxii.  1 — 23.  On  this  occasion  the  most  remarka- 
ble event  of  his  life  occurred.  He  is  alone,  praying  proba- 
bly for  deliverance  from  the  supposed  impending  danger. 
A  being,  apparently  human,  wrestles  with  him  until  day- 
break. Not  prevailing  against  the  hardy  Jacob  by  ordinary 
effort,  he  exerts  a  miraculous  power,  and  the  patriarch's 
thigh  is  contracted.  By  this,  or  some  other  indication,  Jacob 
recognized  the  divine  character  of  his  opponent,  and  ear- 
nestly implored  his  blessing.  He  receives  it,  and  at  the 
same  time  his  name  is  changed  from  Jacob  to  Israel,  a  term 
of  distinction,  implying  that  he  had  prevailed  over  God.'" 
In  commemoration  of  this  extraordinary  interview,  he  calls 
the  place  Peniel,  that  is,  face  of  God.  As  a  confirmation  of 
the  fact,  it  is  stated,  that  the  Israelites  abstain  from  eating 
the  flesh  of  the  tendon  connected  with  that  part  of  the  thigh, 
out  of  respect  to  their  great  ancestor.  24 — 32.^'® 

The  meeting  of  the  two  brothers  now  follows.  Jacob 
approaches  Esau  with  the  deepest  respect,  and  is  received 
with  the  most  tender  affection.  The  precautions  which  he 
had  taken  to  secure  the  safety  of  those  who  were  dearest  to 
him,  appear  to  have  been  unnecessary,  as  the  kindest  feel- 
ing pervades  the  breast  of  his  brother,  who  seems  to  have 
forgotten  former  wrongs,  and  to  kave  yielded  to  the  natural 
impulses  of  a  heart  overflowing  with  affection.     The  pre- 


108         ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

sent'"  which  Jacob  had  prepared  is  at  first  kindly  refused, 
but,  on  his  urgent  solicitation,  is  at  last  accepted.  After  a 
fraternal  offer  of  protection,  which  Jacob  declines  as  unne- 
cessary, Esau  departs  for  his  own  country.  Jacob  travels 
in  another  direction,'^^  and  arrives  safely  at  Shalem,'^^  where 
he  fixes  his  residence  on  land  which  he  had  purchased.  In 
the  manner  of  his  religious  father  and  grandfather,  he  erects 
an  altar  in  honor  of  the  God  of  Israel,  xxxiii.  1 — 20."° 

The  narrative  now  relates  an  unhappy  event  in  the  life 
of  Dinah,  Jacob's  only  daughter,  which  has  an  important  in- 
fluence on  the  patriarch's  arrangements,  and  also  on  the  fu- 
ture destiny  of  two  of  his  sons.  Shechem,  the  lord  of  that 
part  of  the  country  in  which  Jacob  had  settled,  seduces 
Dinah,  and  is  desirous  to  marry  her.  Her  brothers  were  at 
the  time  from  home,  superintending  their  flocks.  Being  in- 
formed of  the  circumstance  on  their  return,  they  are  indig- 
nant at  the  dishonor  which  Shechem's  folly  had  brought  on 
their  father  and  family,"'  and  determine  to  avenge  the  dis- 
grace. In  order  to  ensure  the  accomplishment  of  their  pur- 
pose, they  receive  the  communication  of  the  young  prince 
and  Hamor  his  father  with  apparent  satisfaction,  acquies- 
cing in  the  proposal  made  for  the  hand  of  their  sister,  which 
required  that  Shechem  and  his  people  should  submit  to  bo 
circumcised.  The  father  and  son  agreed  to  the  terms ;  and, 
by  a  favorable  representation  of  the  advantages  to  be  de- 
rived by  forming  connexions  with  the  family  of  a  man  so 
wealthy  and  honorable  as  Jacob,  they  prevail  on  their  peo- 
ple to  consent  to  the  unpleasant  condition."^  When  the  in- 
convenience resulting  from  the  operation  was  most  oppres- 
sive, and  incapacitated  the  Shechemites  for  active  exertion, 
two  of  Dinah's  maternal  brothers,  Simeon  and  Levi,  at  the 
head  most  probably  of  their  armed  dependants,  attacked  and 
put  to  death  the  unsuspecting  people,  with  Hamor  and  his 
son,  spoiled  their  city,  seized  their  property,  and  deUvered 


ANALYSIS  OP  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.         109 

the  injured  daughter  of  Jacob.  When  the  patriarch  severe- 
ly remonstrates  with  them  on  the  criminaUty  of  their  con- 
duct, they  attempt  to  vindicate  or  palliate  it  by  the  infamy 
which  the  treatment  of  the  prince  had  brought  on  their 
sister,  xxxiv.  1 — 31. 

God  now  commands  Jacob  to  remove  to  Bethel.  He 
obeys,  after  having  purified  his  household  from  the  remains 
of  superstition  and  idolatry  which  still  clung  to  some  of  its 
members.  A  panic  terror,  induced  by  divine  Providence, 
seizes  the  inhabitants  of  the  neighboring  cities,  and  prevents 
them  from  avenging  on  his  sons  the  slaughter  of  the  She- 
chemites."^  On  arriving  at  Bethel,  he  builds  an  altar,  and 
designates  the  place  by  the  name  which  he  had  before  given 
it,  prefixing  also  the  name  of  God."*  The  death  and  burial 
of  Rebecca's  nurse  is  mentioned,  in  order,  most  probably, 
to  explain  to  the  Israelites  the  origin  of  the  name  of  an  oak 
subsisting  in  their  time,  rather  than  from  the  importance  of 
the  circumstance  itself,  as  Rebecca's  own  death  is  passed 
over  unnoticed,  xxxv.  1 — 8.  Then  follows  an  account  of 
another  divine  communication,  renewing  promises  before 
made  and  the  previous  change  of  the  patriarch's  name.  He 
commemorates  the  event  by  setting  up  a  stone  pillar,  with 
religious  rites.  9 — 15.  The  narrative  then  mentions  the 
death  of  Rachel,  which  took  place  some  distance'^^  from 
Ephrath  or  Bethlehem,  on  occasion  of  the  birth  of  Benja- 
min;"°  also  another  removal  of  Jacob,  and  the  infamous 
conduct  of  his  eldest  son.*  Then  follows  a  list  of  his  sons, 
all  of  whom  but  one  were  born  in  Mesopotamia."''     This 


*  The  sacred  writer  most  probably  introduces  this  disgraceful  trans- 
action to  prepare  his  reader  for  the  father's  severe  yet  just  denunciation 
contained  in  xlix.  3,  4.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  to  intimate  the  unity 
of  plan  which  pervades  the  whole  book,  and  is  most  consistent  with  the 
theory  that  it  was  composed  by  one  author. 


110         ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

part  closes  by  an  account  of  the  age  and  death  of  Isaac,  who 
was  buried  by  his  two  sons.  16 — 29. 

Part  X.     Chap,  xxxvi. 

This  chapter  is  closely  connected  with  the  preceding  and 
subsequent  chapters.  At  the  end  of  xxxv,  it  is  said  of  Isaac, 
that  "  his  sons  Esau  and  Jacob  buried  him."  This  is  fol- 
lowed in  the  present  chapter  by  a  genealogical  statement  of 
Esau's  descendants,  concluding  with,  "this  is  Esau,  the 
father  of  the  Edomites  ;"  immediately  after  which,  in  chapter 
xxxvii,  we  have  an  account  of  Jacob's  family.* 

Without  interrupting  the  subsequent  history  of  this  family, 
a  brief  account  of  the  descendants  of  Esau  is  here  given. 
First,  his  wives  are  enumerated."'  This  is  succeeded  by  a 
notice  of  his  sons,  and  of  his  removal  to  Seir,  which  leaves 
the  land  of  Canaan  for  the  family  of  his  brother.  Each  of 
these  countries  was  occupied  by  the  descendants  of  Jacob 
and  Esau  respectively,  agreeably  to  divine  direction.  Esau 
gathered  all  his  effects  which  he  had  acquired  in  Canaan,  and 
went  into  another  land,"'  away  from  his  brother  Jacob.  This 
suggests  the  reason  of  the  procedure.  Lot  had  settled  in 
Sodom,  leaving  Canaan  to  Abram,  xiii.  12 ;  Ishmael  and 
other  sons  of  Abraham  had  been  removed  to  the  east,  xxv. 
6.  Esau  now  abandons  the  promised  land  to  his  brother,  to 
whom  it  of  right  belonged.  The  immediate  occasion  of  this 
arrangement  is  said  to  be  the  great  pastoral  wealth  of  the 
parties,  their  cattle  being  too  numerous  for  the  limited  pas- 
tures, which  the  condition  of  the  country  allowed  them  to 

*  It  would  seem  difficult  to  persuade  one's  self  that  more  than  one 
author  was  engaged  in  the  composition  of  these  chapters.  If  there  were, 
the  compiler  must  have  performed  his  task  with  extraordinary  ability, 
so  happy  is  the  combination  of  originally  unconnected  fragmenis  which 
he  must  be  supposed  to  have  made. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.         Ill 

occupy.  It  is  to  be  considered,  that  the  Canaanitish  tribes 
were  now  very  considerable,  and  that  the  patriarchal  fami- 
lies required  great  extent  of  country,  on  account  of  the  mul- 
titude of  their  cattle,  and  also  of  their  nomad  habits,  xxxvi. 
1 — 8.  Then  follows  a  list  of  Esau's  descendants  for  a  few 
generations,  9 — 19,  he  himself  now  appearing  as  the  father 
of  a  tribe ;  and  also  of  Seir's,  the  former  possessor  of  the 
country,  20 — 30."°  A  consecutive  catalogue  of  the  kings 
that  reigned  in  Edom  before  the  institution  of  royal  authority 
over  the  Israelites,  and  a  list  of  certain  dukes,  complete  the 
chapter.  31—43.'" 

Part  XI.     Chap,  xxxvii.  1 — l. 

This  last  part  of  the  book  of  Genesis  contains  the  subse- 
quent history  of  Jacob's  family  until  the  death  of  Joseph."* 

This  was  the  patriarch's  favorite  child,  and  the  parent's 
partiality  seems  to  have  shown  itself  injudiciously,  both  in 
the  peculiar  attire  in  which  he  dressed  the  youth,  and  in 
allowing  him  to  make  unfavorable  reports  of  his  elder 
brothers.  The  father's  undue  fondness  for  this  son  excited 
the  jealousy  of  the  others,  and  their  dislike  was  increased 
by  two  dreams  of  his  which  he  communicated  to  them,  and 
which  plainly  indicated  his  future  superiority  over  the  whole 
family."^  These  dreams  made  a  strong  impression  on  the 
mind  of  the  patriarch,  although  he  thought  proper  to 
censure  his  son  for  the  extraordinary  self-importance  which 
they  seemed  to  imply.  At  the  age  of  seventeen,  Joseph 
was  sent  to  inquire  after  the  welfare  of  his  brothers,  who 
were  some  distance  from  home  attending  their  flocks.  On 
his  approach  they  resolve  to  kill  him,  but  at  the  instance 
of  Reuben,  who  wishes  to  secure  his  safety  in  order  to  de- 
liver him  to  his  father,  he  is  put  into  a  pit.  During  Reu- 
ben's absence,  a  party  of  Ishmaelites"*  pass  along  on  their 


112         ANALYSIS  OP  THE  BOOK  OP  GENESIS. 

way  to  Egypt,  and  at  the  proposal  of  Judah,  Joseph  is  sold 
to  them.  His  coat  is  then  dipped  in  blood,  and  a  fraud  is 
practised  upon  Jacob,  who  is  led  to  believe  that  his  favorite 
had  been  devoured  by  some  wild  beast.  In  the  mean  while 
Joseph  is  taken  to  Egypt,  and  sold  to  Potiphar,  one  of  the 
king's  officers,  xxxvii. 

The  contents  of  the  next  chapter  seem  to  have  no  im- 
mediate connexion  with  the  preceding  or  subsequent,  the 
history  of  which  appears  to  be  thereby  unexpectedly  inter- 
rupted. If  the  conduct  of  Judah  with  respect  to  Tamar, 
which  is  the  principal  point  in  the  account,  were  contem- 
poraneous with  the  sale  of  Joseph,  this  may  explain  the 
reason  of  its  introduction  in  this  place.  But  it  seems  very 
difficult  to  reconcile  such  a  synchronism  with  dates  men- 
tioned in  other  parts  of  the  history.'"  Judah's  failure  to 
perform  his  promise  to  his  daughter-in-law  Tamar,  by  mar- 
rying her  to  his  son  Shelah,""  induces  her  to  perpetrate  a 
shameful  and  wicked  deceit,  which  is  followed  by  the  birth 
of  her  twin  sons,  of  whom  Judah  is  the  father,  xxxviii. 

The  excellent  conduct  of  Joseph,  and  the  prosperity  which 
attended  all  his  efforts  to  advance  his  master's  interests,  led 
Potiphar  to  make  him  superintendent  over  his  family,  and  to 
resign  to  him  all  his  concerns.'"  The  beauty  of  Joseph's 
person  attracting  the  attention  of  his  mistress,  subjected  him 
to  repeated  solicitations,  the  virtuous  rejection  of  which  in- 
duced her  to  calumniate  him  to  her  husband,  and  was  thus  the 
occasion  of  his  imprisonment.  (See  Gen.  xl.  3,  4,  the  latter 
of  which  texts  seems  to  imply  that  Potiphar  had  become 
satisfied  of  Joseph's  innocence.)  But  the  favor  which  di- 
vine Providence  had  already  shown  him  is  still  continued, 
and  alleviates  the  sufferings  of  confinement.  The  keeper  of 
the  prison  commits  the  care  of  its  inmates  to  the  faithful 
Joseph,  in  whose  hands  every  thing  is  made  to  prosper, 
xxxix."* 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.         113 

At  this  time  two  of  the  king's  officers  are  imprison- 
ed, and  put  under  the  supervision  of  Joseph.  After  hav- 
ing been  some  time  in  confinement,  each  of  them  has 
on  the  same  night  a  remarkable  dream,"'  adapted  to  the 
nature  of  his  office  in  the  court.  Joseph  explains  the  dreams, 
and  in  the  course  of  three  days,  as  he  had  foretold,  the 
event  reaUzed  the  interpretation.""  One  of  the  officers  is 
put  to  death,  and  the  other  restored  to  Iris  former  station, 
xl.  Tv^o  years  afterwards  Pharaoh  himself  has  a  very  ex- 
traordinary dream ;  and  this  is  succeeded  by  another, 
which,  in  its  main  points,  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to 
the  former.  These  repeated  dreams,  so  pecuKar  in  their 
character,  disturb  the  monarch's  mind.  He  feels  that  they 
must  forebode  something  unusual,  and  endeavors  to  obtain 
satisfaction  from  the  magicians  and  wise  men  of  Egypt,  who 
affected  to  be  able  to  penetrate  into  futurity.  But  in  vain. 
The  meaning  of  the  dreams  lies  beyond  the  reach  of  their 
keenest  sagacity.  In  this  dilemma,  the  officer  who  had 
been  restored  to  his  place,  agreeably  to  the  interpretation  of 
his  dream  as  given  a  long  time  before  by  Joseph,  remembers 
the  Hebrew  captive,  and  relates  to  Pharaoh  the  whole  ac- 
count of  himself  and  his  unfortunate  brother-officer,  with 
the  successful  interpretation  of  their  respective  dreams* 
Joseph  is  immediately  sent  for,  and  after  modestly  disclaim- 
ing any  ability  of  his  own  to  satisfy  the  royal  mind,  and  re- 
ferring to  the  omniscient  God  as  the  only  source  of  know- 
ledge,  the  dreams  are  made  known  to  him  by  Pharaoh* 
He  then  informs  the  king  that  both  indicate  the  same  thing ; 
that  seven  years  of  extraordinary  plenty  are  to  be  followed 
by  as  many  of  extraordinary  scarcity ;  and  that  the  repe^ 
tition  of  the  dreams  denotes  the  certainty  and  speedy  ac- 
complishment of  the  prediction.  He  also  suggests  to 
Pharaoh  certain  measures  proper  to  be  taken  in  order  to 
preserve  the  people,  during  the  time  of  the  famine  which  id 
15 


114         ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

to  waste  the  country,  xli.  1 — 36.  Pharaoh  shows  how 
strong  an  impression  the  advice  of  this  prudent  counsellor 
had  made  on  his  mind,  by  appointing  him  general  superin- 
tendent over  Egypt,  inferior  only  to  himself.  He  accom- 
panies this  dignity  with  suitable  external  marks  of  honor,'^' 
gives  Joseph  an  Egyptian  name,  expressive  of  the  great 
benefits  which  were  received  from  him  as  the  saviour  of  their 
lives,  (comp.  xlvii.  26,)'"  and  raises  him  to  the  highest  of 
the  national  castes,  by  marrying  him  to  a  daughter  of  the 
priest  of  Heliopolis,  the  city  of  the  sun,  as  the  Egyptian 
word  On  signifies.  37 — 45.  Joseph  immediately  enters  on 
the  duties  of  his  office,  and  secures  the  surplus  grain  during 
the  seven  exceedingly  prolific  years.  In  the  mean  time,  he 
becomes  the  father  of  two  sons,  to  whom  he  gives  names 
expressive  of  the  happy  change  which,  by  the  blessing  of 
Providence,  had  taken  place  in  his  condition.  46 — 52. 

Now  come  the  predicted  years  of  famine.  The  neigh- 
boring nations  apply  to  Egypt  for  food ;  and  Jacob's  sons, 
with  the  exception  of  Benjamin,  the  father's  darling,  present 
themselves  before  the  great  lord  of  Eg)^pt,  and  make  the 
most  respectful  obeisance  to  "the  dreamer,"  whom  they  had 
*•  sold  for  a  servant."  He  immediately  recognizes  them  as 
his  unworthy  brothers.  But  too  well  acquainted  Vvith  their 
real  characters,  he  knew  that  it  was  expedient  to  exercise 
some  degree  of  harshness  towards  them  as  a  wholesome  dis- 
cipline. They  presented  themselves  before  him,  without 
his  father's  favorite,  his  own  beloved  Benjamin.  The  sus- 
picion was  probably  awakened  in  his  bosom,  that  this  only 
other  son  of  his  mother  had,  like  himself,  been  subjected  to 
unworthy  treatment,  perhaps  had  come  to  an  untimely  end. 
Their  treachery  towards  himself  he  had  doubtless  long 
since  forgiven ;  but  it  became  him  to  take  measures  in  order 
to  ascertain  his  brother's  condition.  With  the  view  of 
satisfying  himself  on  this  point  the  more  readily,  he  per- 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.         116 

sonates  the  stranger.  He  accuses  them  of  being  spies,  and 
puts  them  in  prison.  On  the  third  day,  he  releases  them 
from  confinement,  and  retaining  Simeon,  who  was  probably 
one  of  the  most  cruel  of  the  band,  (see  xlix.  5,)  as  a  hos- 
tage, he  dismisses  the  others,  with  provision  for  their  fami- 
lies, commanding  them  at  the  same  time  to  bring  to  him 
their  youngest  brother,  and  thus  to  clear  themselves  of  the 
charge  which  he  had  brought  against  them.  On  returning 
to  Jacob,  and  giving  him  an  account  of  their  reception  in 
Egypt,  of  the  retention  of  Simeon,  and  the  demand  for 
Benjamin,  the  patriarch's  distress  is  greatly  aggravated. 
The  money  of  each  one  being  found  carefully  secured  in  his 
respective  sack,'"  adds  to  the  prevalent  distress.  As  a 
circumstance,  strange  and  unaccountable,  perhaps  it  awak- 
ened alarm  in  their  guilty  consciences,  although  they  knew 
not  why;  perhaps  also  it  suggested  a  seemingly  well 
founded  apprehension  of  increased  danger  to  Simeon.  The 
anguish  which  must  have  been  felt  both  by  parent  and  sons,  is 
most  strikingly  depicted,  by  the  frenzied  proposal  which  Reu- 
ben makes  to  his  father,  to  allow  him  to  take  Benjamin  to 
Egypt,  and  if  he  did  not  bring  him  back,  to  "  slay"  his  own 
"  two  sons"  ;  in  other  words,  to  avenge  the  loss  of  his  favorite 
by  destroying  two  of  his  grandchildren  !  In  such  a  state  of 
mind,  rational  propositions  were  hardly  to  be  expected. 
The  language  of  the  overwhelmed  patriarch  as  strikingly 
portrays  the  depth  of  his  affection  for  the  lost  Joseph  and 
his  younger  brother ;  "  my  son  shall  not  go  down  with 
you,  for  his  brother  is  dead,  and  he  is  left  alone."  53 — xlii. 

But  necessity  knows  no  law.  The  famine  increases  ;  the 
supply  of  corn  is  consumed  ;  and  Jacob  proposes  a  second 
application  to  Egypt.  Judah  wrings  from  him  a  reluctant 
consent  that  Benjamin  shall  accompany  them.  With  a  small 
present,  consisting  of  the  best  productions  of  the  ground, 
which  circumstances  allowed  them  to  procure,  and  which 


116         ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

were  usually  imported  to  Egypt  in  the  way  of  trade,  (see 
xxxvii.  25,)  and  with  twice  the  sum  necessary  to  pay  for  the 
expected  provision,  Joseph's  brothers  again  make  their 
appearance  in  Egypt.  Now,  having  substantiated  the  truth 
of  their  former  statements,  they  are  treated  with  kindness 
and  distinction  ;  they  are  brought  to  the  house  of  the  gov- 
ernor, who  finds  it  impossible  to  restrain  the  overflowings  of 
fraternal  affection  for  Benjamin,  his  mother's  son,  and  is 
obliged  to  retire  in  private  to  give  vent  to  his  feelings.  The 
order  of  the  entertainment  which  follows  is  doubtless  di- 
rected by  Joseph.  He,  his  brothers,  and  his  Egyptian 
guests,  are  separately  served,  in  order  that  the  prejudices  of 
the  latter  should  not  be  offended  ;"*  and,  to  the  surprise  and 
perplexity  of  the  Hebrew  party,  they  are  arranged  accord- 
ing to  seniority.  Agreeably  to  usage,  the  master  of  the 
feast  sends  portions  to  each  of  his  company,  and  the  affec- 
tionate brother  avails  himself  of  the  occasion  to  show  his 
regard  for  Benjamin,  by  sending  him  five  times  as  much  as 
any  one  of  the  others,  xliii. 

It  must  be  evident  to  every  reflecting  reader,  that  it  is 
Joseph's  intention  to  make  himself  known  to  his  brethren. 
Before  doing  so,  however,  he  thinks  it  best  to  discover  their 
sentiments  and  feelings  tow^ard  Benjamin,  in  order  to  ascer- 
tain whether  the  same  unkind  jealousies  which  had  marked 
their  conduct  towards  himself,  now  influenced  their  treat- 
ment of  his  brother.  He  directs  his  steward  to  return  the 
money  as  before,  and,  in  addition,  to  put  his  own  cup  into 
Benjamin's  sack.  Some  time  after  the  men  had  been  dis- 
missed, the  steward  is  sent  in  pursuit,  and  severely  expostu- 
lates with  them  on  the  ingratitude  of  their  conduct,  and  also 
on  the  folly  of  it,  representing  the  moral  certainty  of  detec- 
tion."' The  accusation  of  theft  is  repelled  with  a  feeling  of 
conscious  innocence.  If  the  cup  shall  be  found  in  the  pos- 
session of  any  one,  they  do  not  hesitate  to  condemn  him  to 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  117 

death  and  themselves  to  bondage.  The  examination  results 
in  finding  it  in  the  sack  of  Benjamin ;  and,  in  utter  confusion 
and  dismay,  the  party  return  to  the  city.  With  the  deepest 
humiliation,  Judah,  who  evidently  supposes  the  theft  to  have 
been  committed,  acknow^ledges  their  crime,  and  offers  him- 
self and  his  brothers  as  servants.  With  an  apparently  strict 
regard  to  justice,  Joseph  refuses  to  retain  in  bondage  any 
but  the  offender  himself.  He  permits  the  others  to  return  to 
their  father.  This  is  followed  by  the  most  touching  address 
of  Judah,  who  remembers  the  "bereavement"  which  his 
father  had  felt  in  parting  with  Benjamin,  and  is  aware  that 
the  retention  of  this  beloved  child  must  bring  down  the  pa- 
rent's "  gray  hairs  with  sorrow  to  the  grave."  The  simpli- 
city, the  tenderness,  the  exquisite  pathos  of  the  expostulation 
which  flows  warm  from  the  heart  of  Judah,  make  it  as  a 
composition  altogether  inimitable.  Any  attempt  to  analyse 
it  must  be  a  failure.  He  begs  the  privilege  of  being  substi- 
tuted as  a  bondsman  in  the  place  of  his  younger  brother,  and 
that  "  the  lad,"  whose  return  is  essential  to  the  life  of  the 
worn-out  old  man,  may  be  permitted  to  return  to  his  bosom. 
It  was  impossible  to  resist  such  an  appeal,  "  and  Joseph 
wept  aloud."  Dismissing  his  Egyptian  attendants,  he  tells 
his  brethren  who  he  is,  consoles  them  in  the  distress  which 
the  declaration  occasioned,  by  reminding  them  that  divine 
Providence  had  superintended  and  controlled  the  remarkable 
events  of  his  Ufe,  with  a  view  to  the  general  good.  He  di- 
rects them  to  hasten  to  his  father  with  the  joyous  intelli- 
gence that  '*  God  had  made  him  lord  of  all  Egypt,"  and  with 
an  urgent  request  to  come  and  settle  there  with  his  family. 
Natural  and  appropriate  manifestations  of  affection  accom- 
pany the  disclosure,  and  the  confidence  of  his  brothers  is 
somewhat  restored.  The  intelligence  of  the  arrival  of  Jo- 
seph's brothers  is  received  by  Pharaoh  with  pleasure,  and 
the  grateful  monarch  reiterates  the  request  of  his  prime 


118         ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

minister,  and  makes  liberal  provision  for  the  journey  of  Ja- 
cob's family.  Another  illustration  of  Joseph's  fondness  for 
Benjamin  shows  itself  in  a  generous  donation ;  and  he  dis- 
misses his  brothers,  either  with  encouragement  not  to  dis- 
tress themselves  with  apprehensions  of  evil,  or  else  with  ex- 
hortation not  to  make  themselves  uneasy  by  mutual  recrimi- 
nation. The  original  word  ^T!i"!^,  may  be  understood  so 
as  to  imply  either  of  those  senses,  xliv.  1 — xlv.  24. 

On  returning,  they  communicate  to  their  father  the  intelli- 
gence of  Joseph's  being  still  alive  and  ruling  over  Egypt. 
At  first  the  good  tidings  are  too  joyful  to  be  credited,  and 
when  the  patriarch  is  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  his  children's 
account,  it  is  the  fact  that  his  dear  son  is  still  living  to  which 
his  heart  responds :  the  attendant  dignities  and  honors  are 
overlooked.  "  Joseph,  my  son,  is  yet  alive :  I  will  go  and 
see  him  before  I  die."  This  resolution  is  sanctioned  by  a 
divine  direction,  and  the  patriarch,  with  all  his  family,"*  set- 
tles in  the  land  of  Egypt.  Joseph  meets  him  in  Goshen,"'' 
and  afterwards  presents  five  of  his  brothers  and  then  his 
father  to  Pharaoh,  with  whom  he  makes  arrangements  for 
the  future  residence  of  the  family  in  that  district,  xlv.  25 — 
xlvii.  12. 

As  the  distress  occasioned  by  the  scarcity  of  food  in- 
creases, Joseph  continues  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  Egyp- 
tians, by  selling  them  provisions  until  their  money  is  ex- 
hausted, after  which  they  barter  their  cattle,  and  at  last  sur- 
render their  property  and  themselves  to  the  monarch.  The 
people  in  general  are  removed  from  their  respective  places 
of  residence,  and  so  disposed  as  best  to  secure  national  quiet 
or  temporary  convenience."^  The  regulations  established 
by  Joseph  either  restored  the  property  thus  purchased  to 
the  former  owner,  or  granted  him  a  portion  elsewhere,  on 
the  condition  that  one-fifth  of  the  produce  should  be  paid  to 
the  king.     This  became  a  permanent  law  of  the  land.     The 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.         119 

property  of  the  priests,  however,  who  were  supported  during 
the  famine  by  Pharaoh,  was  expressly  exckided  from  this 
arrangement.   13 — 26. 

The  settlement  of  the  Israelites  in  the  fertile  region  which 
had  been  assigned  them,  was  marked  by  advancing  prosperi- 
ty and  increase.  Nevertheless,  a  permanent  residence  in 
Egypt,  the  most  distinguished  probably  among  the  flourish- 
ing countries  of  the  ancient  world,  and  therefore  in  point  of 
secular  advantages  the  most  desirable,  was  far  from  the 
thoughts  of  the  venerable  Jacob.  He  remembered .  the 
promises  made  to  his  fathers  and  renewed  to  himself,  that 
their  posterity  should  possess  the  land  of  Canaan ;  he  could 
not  have  been  unacquainted  with  the  prediction,  that  they 
were  to  reside  under  afflictive  circumstances  among  a 
foreign  people,  and  in  the  end  to  be  restored  to  the  pro- 
mised country,  (xv.  13 — 16.)  Calling  to  mind  the  extraor- 
dinary interpositions  of  divine  Providence  in  favor  of  his 
family  ;  confidently  relying  on  the  fidelity  of  his  almighty 
protector ;  and,  probably,  regarding  the  temporal  blessings 
announced  in  the  promise  as  emblematic  of  those  spiritual 
and  everlasting  joys,  which  God  hath  prepared  for  those 
who  love  and  trust  him ;  he  requires  of  Joseph,  with  the 
solemnity  of  an  oath,  not  to  inter  him  in  Egypt,  though 
famous  for  the  seemingly  imperishable  character  of  its 
mausoleums,  but  to  bury  him  with  his  fathers  in  the  land  of 
Canaan.  Assured  of  being  gratified  in  this  wish  of  faith, 
the  venerable  patriarch  vents  the  feelings  of  his  gratitude  in 
devout  thanksgiving.  27 — 31.''' 

After  this  Jacob  is  taken  sick,  and  visited  by  his  favorite 
son,  who  is  accompanied  by  his  two  children,  Manasseh  and 
Ephraim.  After  recounting  the  appearance  of  God  to  him 
in  Canaan,  and  his  promise  to  bless  him  and  his  posterity, 
Jacob  formally  adopts  the  two  boys,  placing  them  in  the 
same  rank,  and  entitling  them  to  the  same  privileges  and 


120         ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

patrimonial  inheritance  as  his  own  children.  The  sight  of 
the  beloved  Joseph  awakens  in  his  bosom  the  feelings  of 
affection  which  he  had  never  ceased  to  cherish  for  his  la- 
mented Rachel,  and  he  touches  on  the  circumstances  of  her 
death  and  burial.  The  verse  (7.)  which  contains  this  stroke 
of  conjugal  tenderness,  does  indeed  interrupt  the  connexion 
of  the  patriarch's  leading  thought.  The  coldness  of  affected 
criticism  finds  here  an  interpolation ;  but  it  is  nature  itself 
that  bursts  out  with  the  interruption,  and  the  mouth  does  but 
pour  forth  somewhat  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart.  It  is 
a  solemn  moment  of  sublime  religious  emotion.  The  heart 
is  full  of  chastened  love.  "  I  had  not  thought  to  see  the 
face  ;  and  lo,  God  hath  showed  me  also  thy  seed."  '  What 
a  mercy  to  grant  such  an  end  to  long  endured  anguish  for  a 
son  so  tenderly  beloved  !  O,  that  she,  so  early  snatched 
away,  could  see  with  me  this  joyous  sight !'  Passing  from 
the  fond  recollection  of  scenes  now  gone  forever,  to  what 
was  then  transpiring,  and  so  on  to  events  which  still  lay  hid 
in  a  remote  futurity,  he  requires  his  two  grandsons  to  be 
brought  to  him.  After  affectionately  embracing  them,  and 
again  expressing  his  devout  gratitude,  he  laid  his  right  hand 
on  the  head  of  his  younger  grandson,  and  his  left  on  that  of 
the  elder,  although  the  position  in  which  their  father  had 
placed  them  must  have  required  him  to  cross  his  arms,'^° 
and  thus  to  assume  a  posture  somewhat  unnatural.  The 
dimness  of  the  patriarch,  in  consequence  of  his  advanced 
age,  prevented  him  from  distinguishing  the  elder  from  the 
younger,  so  that  this  adjustment,  which  the  subsequent  pre- 
diction shows  was  not  incidental,  must  have  originated  in  a 
divine  superintending  influence.  Joseph  was  well  aware 
that  the  position  of  his  father's  hands  intimated  the  degree 
of  the  predicted  benefaction,  and  he  would  have  placed  the 
right  hand  on  the  head  of  Manasseh,  his  eldest  son.  But 
the  aged  seer,  who  was  better  acquainted  with  the  analogy 


ANALYSIS    or    THE    BOOK    OP    GENESIS,  121 

-of  the  divine  procedure,  and  with  the  determination  of  Pro- 
vidence respecting  the  two  brothers,  refused  to  alter  the 
arrangement  which  he  had  designedly  made.  While  he 
gave  his  prophetic  blessing  to  both  the  brothers,  he  plainly 
announced  that  the  posterity  of  the  younger  should  be  the 
more  numerous,  and  become  a  greater  people  than  that 
which  should  descend  from  the  elder.  Both,  however, 
should  be  considered  as  the  sons  of  Israel,  whose  name  they 
were  to  bear ;  and  the  angel  who  supported  the  father 
through  all  the  diversified  scenes  of  his  life,  and  delivered 
him  from  the  various  dangers  which  so  often  threatened  his 
destruction,  is  invoked,  evidently  as  a  divine  being,  to  bless 
the  adopted  children."'  The  interview  is  closed  by  another 
expression  of  faith  on  the  part  of  Jacob,  that  God  would 
restore  his  family  to  the  land  of  their  fathers'  pilgrimage, 
and  by  the  notice  of  a  donation  of  a  particular  piece  of 
ground  to  Joseph,  which  his  father  had  forcibly  wrested 
from  the  Amorites.  xlviii.'" 

Now  follows  the  celebrated  blessing  of  Jacob,'"  which  he 
announced  before  his  death  in  the  presence  of  his  sons.* 

*  And  Jacob  called  to  his  sons  ;  and  he  said,  gather  your- 
selves together,  and  I  will  declare  to  you  what  shall  befall 
you  in  future  times.  Collect  yourselves  and  attend,  ye  sons 
of  Jacob,  attend  to  Israel  your  father. 

Reubex,  my  first-born  art  thou, 

My  might,  and  the  beginning  of  my  strength, 
Chief  in  excellence,  and  chief  in  might. 

Lascivious,  like  water,  thou  shalt  not  be  chief, 

*  As  this  portion  is  particularly  interesting  and  important,  I  trust 
that  a  translation  of  the  whole  of  it,  accompanied  b}-^  notes  more  ex- 
tensive than  those  usually  employed  in  this  work,  will  not  be  unac- 
ceptable."* 

16 


122         ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS, 

Because  thou  ascendedst  the  bed  of  thy  father, 

Then  didst  thou  pollute  it : — 
He  ascended  my  couch ! 

Simeon  and  Levi  are  brethren; 
Jnstruments  of  violence  are  their  swords. 

In  their  secret  council  enter  not,  my  soul, 
In  their  assembly  do  not  join,  my  heart, 

For  in  their  anger  they  slew  men, 
And  in  their  wantonness  they  destroyed  a  city. 

Cursed  be  their  anger,  for  it  was  fierce. 
And  their  wrath,  for  it  was  cruel ; 

I  will  disperse  them  among  Jacob, 
And  will  scatter  them  among  Israel. 

J  LTD  AH  !  thy  brethren  will  praise  thee. 
Thy  hand  shall  strike  the  backs  of  thine  enemies  ; 

The  sons  of  thy  father  shall  bow  down  before  thee, 
A  lion's  whelp  is  Judah; 

From  the  prey,  my  son,  thou  hast  gone  up ! 
He  bent,  couched  down  like  a  lion. 

And  like  a  roaring  lion  : 
Who  will  rouse  him  1 

Authority  shall  not  depart  from  Judah, 
Neither  shall  he  want  a  law-giver, 

Until  he  comes  to  whom  it  is. 
And  him  the  nations  shall  obey. 

He  fastens  to  the  vine  his  ass's  foal. 
And  to  the  choice  vine  the  son  of  his  ass : 

He  washes  in  wine  his  garments. 
And  in  the  blood  of  grapes  his  vesture. 

Sparkling  are  his  eyes  with  wine. 
And  white  are  his  teeth  with  milk. 

Zebulon  will  dwell  on  the  sea-coas:.. 
A  coast  well  lined  with  ships ; 

His  territories  reach  unto  Zidon. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.         123 

IssACHAR  is  a  strong  ass, 

Lying  down  within  his  borders. 
And  he  saw  that  rest  was  good, 

And  that  the  land  was  fair  ; 
And  he  offered  his  shoulder  to  bear  the  burden, 

And  became  a  tributary. 
Dan  will  rule  his  people, 

Like  one  of  the  tribes  of  Israel. 
Dan  will  be  a  serpent  in  the  road, 

An  adder  in  the  path, 
That  biteth  the  heels  of  the  horse, 

And  his  rider  falls  backward. 
For  thy  deliverance  have  I  waited, 

O  Jehovah ! 
Gad,  a  troop  may  press  upon  him, 

But  he  shall  press  in  the  end. 
From  AsHER,  rich  shall  be  his  food, 

And  he  shall  yield  royal  delicacies. 
Naphtali  is  a  hind  let  loose ; 

He  giveth  discourses  of  beauty. 
A  fruitful  scion  is  Joseph, 

A  fruitful  scion  at  a  well, 
The  branches  shoot  over  the  wall. 

The  archers  distressed  him. 
They  shot  at  him,  and  hated  him  ; 

But  his  bow  continued  strong, 
And  his  arms  were  active. 

By  the  hands  of  the  mighty  one  of  Jacob, 
By  the  name  of  the  shepherd,  the  stone  of  Israel, 

By  the  God  of  thy  father,  who  will  help  thee, 
And  the  Almighty,  who  will  bless  thee, 

With  blessings  of  heaven  above. 
Blessings  of  the  deep  which  lieth  below. 

Blessings  of  the  breasts  and  of  the  womb. 


124         ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS. 

The  blessings  of  thy  father  exceed  the  blessings  of  the  per- 
petual mountains, 

The  desirable  things  of  the  eternal  hills  ; 
They  shall  come  upon  the  head  of  Joseph, 

And  upon  the  crown  of  the  noblest  among  his  brethren. 
Benjamin  is  a  wolf,  he  tears  in  pieces  ; 

In  the  morning  he  devours  the  prey, 
And  at  evening  he  divides  the  spoil.'  xlix.  1 — 27. 

After  uttering  this  prophetic  benediction  relating  to  the 
future  circumstances  of  his  children's  posterity,  the  patriarch 
charges  all  his  sons  together,  to  bury  him  with  his  fathers  in 
the  land  of  Canaan.  Then,  having  no  other  communication  to 
make,  he  calmly  surrenders  his  soul  to  him  that  gave  it,  "  and 
is  gathered  unto  his  peopb."  28 — 33. 

The  tokens  of  Joseph's  filial  affection  are  followed  by 
directions  to  have  his  father's  body  embalmed.  The  cere- 
monies of  mourning  in  Egypt  being  ended,  Joseph  obtains 
permission  of  Pharaoh  to  attend  the  remains  of  his  father  to 
the  place  of  interment  in  Canaan,  agreeably  to  the  oath 
which  he  had  sworn.  Having  arrived  at  the  threshing  floor 
of  Atad,  which  was  no  doubt  some  place  east  of  the  Jor- 
dan,''* well  fitted  for  the  purpose  intended,  the  lamentation 
is  renewed,  and  so  marked  is  its  character,  that  it  gives  rise 
to  the  name  by  which  the  place  was  afterwards  distinguish- 
ed. This  second  mourning  being  ended,  the  obsequies  of 
his  venerated  parent  are  suitably  performed,  and  the  body  de- 
posited in  the  spot  so  solemnly  agreed  on.  Joseph  and  his 
company  return  to  Egypt.  1.  1 — 14. 

His  ^brothers,  apprehensive  lest  the  decease  of  their 
father  should  have  removed  the  only  restraint  which  could 
have  prevented  Joseph  from  resenting  their  injurious  treat- 
ment, sent  a  messenger  to  him,  deprecating  his  anger  in  the 
most  affecting  language,  and  then  went  themselves  with  the 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OP  GENESIS.         125 

humblest  acknowledgments.  His  reply  is  such  as  might 
have  been  expected  from  an  affectionate  and  forgiving 
brother,  who  recognized  the  hand  of  divine  Providence  in 
the  most  distressful  events  of  his  hfe.  15 — 21.  The  account 
of  Joseph's  death  at  the  age  of  one  hundred  and  ten  years, 
surrounded  by  his  family,  and  avowing  the  same  faith  by 
which  his  ancestors  had  been  distinguished,  closes  the  book* 
15—26. 


NOTES    TO    GENESIS. 


Part  I.     Chap.  i. — ii.  3. 

(1.)  Some  critics  divide  the  work  into  nine  parts,  consider- 
ing the  sixth  as  the  commencement  of  the  seventh,  and  the 
eighth  as  an  appendix  to  it.  But  the  history  of  Abraham, 
which  is  so  very  prominent  a  part  of  the  book  of  Genesis, 
ought  to  be  made  a  distinct  portion.  I  have  therefore 
thought  it  best  to  separate  the  genealogical  list  of  Shem's 
descendants  from  the  subsequent  more  minute  and  particular 
narrative,  and  to  make  the  brief  notice  of  Ishmael's  family 
in  XXV.  12 — 18,  a  distinct  division,  to  which  it  seems  to 
have  as  just  a  claim  as  the  account  of  Esau's  descendants 
in  xxxvi. 

(2.)  Comp.  v.  14 — 17.  The  phrase  "  heaven  and  earth,"  v. 
1.  ii.  1,  expresses  the  universe.  See  Gen,  xiv.  19,  22.  Some- 
times, indeed,  other  terms  are  added  ;  but  this  is  done  for 
the  sake  of  emphasis  or  graphical  effect.  Thus  we  find  the 
language,  "  the  heavens  and  the  earth  and  the  sea  and  the 
dry  land."  See  Hag.  ii.  6,  where  the  representation  is 
figurative,  and  explained  by  the  phrase  "  all  nations"  in  the 
next  verse;  also  Ex.  xx.  11,  which  is  literal,  "the  Lord 
made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is." 

(3.)  In  favor  of  the  former  view,  the  analogy  of  the  book 
may  be  pleaded,  every  other  division  having  its  own  proper 
introduction.  But  it  may  be  replied,  that  the  introductions 
to  the  other  divisions  are  evidently  inscriptions,  while  this 


128  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [pakt  I. 

appears  to  be  a  historical  statement  of  what  first  took  place, 
followed  by  a  continuous  account  of  subsequent  transactions. 
The  words  in  ii.  3,  'which  God  created  in  making,'  15^"^^ 
Jliil)?^  would  undoubtedly  agree  with  that  view,  as  tlliUS^b 
no  doubt  refers  to  the  continuous  narrative  before  given. 
But  this  can  hardly  be  considered  as  decisive,  for  i^'llll 
in  i.  1,  may  be  used  in  the  sense  of  originally  creating,  while 
in  ii.  3,  in  connexion  with  tli'©3?b,  it  may  denote  the  perfec- 
tion of  that  original  creation  by  the  proper  formation  and  re- 
gular adjustment  of  the  materials  ;  just  as  a  city  is  said  to  be 
built,  when  the  meaning  is,  that  it  is  only  rebuilt  and  beauti- 
fied. The  exposition  under  consideration  seems  to  be  sup- 
ported by  the  use  of  SJ^'llIl  in  ii.  4,  where  it  implies  forma- 
tion and  arrangement.  Thus  also  in  Isa.  xlv.  18,  the  pro- 
phet evidently  refers  to  the  language  in  Genesis :  *  thus 
saith  the  Lord,  creator  JJ^fi^  of  the  heavens ;  he,  the  God 
that  forms  the  earth  and  makes  it ;  he  establishes  it ;  he 
did  not  create  it  confusion,  he  formed  it  to  be  inhabited,' 
^I'llS':  Si;itpb  ni^^5  ^rin-iSb.  Here  the  word  ls^1$,  so  far 
from  being  used  to  express  the  act  of  calling  into  existence 
a  chaotic  mass,  is  evidently  synonymous  with  ^^'^^  and  tlt^^, 
and  denotes  such  a  creation  as  produces  arrangement  and 
accommodation  for  inhabitants. 

The  latter  view  cannot  be  maintained  on  the  ground  that 
i^'l!il  means  to  create  in  the  sense  of  giving  existence  to,  for 
this,  as  has  been  just  seen,  is  by  no  means  its  necessary  sense. 
The  word  Sl^ipjj^'llll  may  seem  to  support  this  view,  as  in 
Prov.  viii.  22,  it  is  used  without  the  preposition,  to  express  a 
period  anterior  to  the  formation  of  the  world,  as  is  the  cor- 
responding word  125 5^*^^  in  the  same  chapter,  v.  23.  "  The 
Lord  possessed  me  in  the  beginning,  tl^tpSJ^l,  of  his  way ;" 
"from  the  beginning,  'OJi'i'l^,  or  even  the  earth  was:"  lite- 


CHAP.  1— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  129 

rally,  '  from  before  the  earth.'  But  the  nature  of  the  subject 
in  Proverbs,  which  is  a  truly  poetic  and  beautiful  personifi- 
cation of  divine  wisdom,  and  the  immediate  context,  favor 
the  opinion  that  these  terms  denote  eternity ;  and  if  so,  they 
are  inapplicable  to  the  verse  before  us.  It  has  been  thought 
that  a  clear  sense  is  given  to  this  clause  by  supposing  an 
ellipsis  to  be  supplied  from  what  follows,  thus  :  '  in  the  be- 
ginning of  things,  when  nothing  had  yet  been  created.'  So 
BuDDiEus,  in  his  Historia  Ecclesiastica  Veteris  Testamenti, 
Halffi  Magdeb.  1719,  4to.  Tom.  I.  p.  65.  But  it  is  plain 
that  the  question  under  consideration  is  not  hereby  settled  ; 
because,  if  this  ellipsis  be  allow^ed,  it  still  remains  to  be  de- 
termined, whether  the  creating  referred  to  denotes  the  origi- 
nal production  of  things,  or  their  formation  and  arrange- 
ment. If  the  former  be  the  true  meaning,  the  sense  of  the 
verse  and  its  connexion  with  what  follows,  are  evidently  as 
follows :  '  At  first  God  caused  material  substances  to  exist, 
which  being,  or  becoming,  in  a  state  of  confusion  and  dis- 
order, he  afterwards  formed  into  a  harmonious  and  well 
arranged  creation.' 

Another  view  of  this  place  presumes  the  previous  calling 
into  existence  of  the  mass  of  matter,  and  considers  the  first 
verse  with  part  of  the  second  as  descriptive  of  its  condition 
immediately  before  the  creation,  the  account  of  which  then 
follows.  This  is  given  by  Rabbi  Solomon  Jarchi,*  who 
maintains  that  the  construct  usage  of  fT'tptSI.'lS  requires 
some  such  connexion.  After  giving  some  far-fetched  and 
extravagant  allusions  of  earlier  writers,  founded  in  national 
vanity,  he  proceeds  thus :    ^5   1t3TC3D  ItS'inb   iTli^n   iD5S5l 

imsi  nn^n  p^^ni  p5^i  Q^?2t25  ti^^nn  ?i^tri<nn  mtcns 
i^np^sn  55^1  j!<bi  115^  •'H^  u^-r-diin  '^.)2i^^^  ^trm  imm 

*  This  commentator  is  more  usually  denominated  Rashi,  *^t!l)1, 
which  is  a  technical  word  formed  from  the  initial  letters  of  the  above 
appellation. 

17 


130  NOTES    TO   GENESIS.  [part  i. 

innnb  ^n  Qi^^  M2ip  ibsi^tis  ^)2^'b  n^^^nnn  "iio  mmnb 

1)35  vnn5^  btu  nn^'ib  pim  iD^ss^ti)  i^np^an  ii^^:j!^"i  ^b 
"(Srii  n^trb^n  ^t^±)2)2  n^t255<n  Q'^p-^irri  n3b)2'/2  n^tri^nn 

;pt25inn  '^^  nm  mb^nn  ib  n^sm  i^inn  n^tr^^nn  i?2D  'i:-i 
bjsj  '■'■1  n^is^-'i  5>t2Jinn  nnpn  bts  mm  nb^nn  n?3ibD 

l!M  i'lnn  "  But  if  you  wish  to  explain  the  words  according 
to  their  simple  meaning,  explain  them  thus :  '  in  the  beginning 
of  the  creating  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  then  the  earth 
was  without  form,  and  void  and  darkness,  and  God  said,  let 
there  be  light.'  The  verse  does  not  intend  to  show  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  creation,  saying  that  these"  (that  is,  the  heavens 
and  the  earth,)  "  were  first.  If  it  had  been  the  author's  in- 
tention to  state  this,  he  would  have  written  i^l^  rt5TCJ55"li 
'^^'\  Q^^tlJn  fl!^,"  (that  is,  he  would  have  employed  the 
word  riDitSi^lS  and  not  i1^tp!!<nn.)  "  For  ^l^tDi^l  never  oc- 
curs in  Scripture  except  in  connexion  with  a  following 
word,"  (that  is,  in  the  construct  state,)  "  as  we  find  it  in  the 
following  places  :  '  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Jehoia- 
kim' ;  '  the  beginning  of  his  reign' ;  '  the  beginning  of  thy 
corn.'*     So  in  this  place  you  should  read,  '  in  the  beginning 

*  The  general  usage  of  fT'tiJiS^'l  is  construct,  as  Rashi  says.  But 
he  is  mistaken  in  supposing  that  ii  is  never  found  otherwise.  In  Levit. 
ii.  12,  we  have  Hin^b  tJ^iiS!  ^^'^Ipi?  tl^'!2)"^Tl  ]^^p^  "the  oblation 
of  the  first  fruits  ye  shall  offer  them  unto  the  Lord;"  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  21, 
lb  tT'tPi^'l  i^ll'Ti  "and  he  provided  the  first  part  for  himself;"  in 
Neh.  xii.  44.  rii"lip?,72bl  fT^'^.i^'lb,  "  for  the  first  fruits  and  for  the 

tithes;"  and  in  Isa.  xlvi.  10,  i1^"inb^  JT^'CJi^'1^^  1"^5''?>  "declaring  the 
end  from  the  beginning."  But  these,  I  believe,  are  the  only  places  in 
which  fT'tpi^'l  is  used,  not  in  construction  with  the  following  word, 
although  it  occurs  very  often  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  ;  and  h  is  possible, 
that  in  the  first  three  of  these,  it  may  be  in  the  construct  with  a  subse- 
quent word  understood. 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  131 

of  God's  creating  the  heavens,  &c.,'  as  if  the  Hebrew  were 
Jj^lli  in^tDi^'li  in  the  beginning  of  creating.  Similar  to  this 
is,  (Hos.  i.2.)  T^.'iT]'^  nlH^-^^?  i^)>^K\,  that  is  to  say,  the 
beginning  of  God's  speaking  by  Hosea  ;  and  the  Lord  said 
to  Hosea,  &c." 

A  very  particular  account  of  the  various  opinions,  Jewish 
and  Christian,  respecting  the  words  ]n"'tpi<"!!ll  i^'12  may  be 
found  in  Gataker's  Adversaria  Miscellanea,  Lib.  II.  cap.  i.  ii. 

(4.)  The  idea  conveyed  by  the  original  words  is  evidently 
that  of  confusion  and  desolation,  as  they  are  used  in  Job 
xii.  24,  Isa.  xxxiv.  11,  xlv.  18,  Jer.  iv.  23.  The  ancient  ver- 
sions agree  in  this  meaning.  'Ao'^aTog  xai  dxaraifxivag-og,  in 
the  Septuagint,  refers  either  to  the  mass  being  overflowed 
by  water  and  consequently  not  to  be  seen,  or  rather  to  its 
wild,  confused  appearance,  making  it  unfit  to  be  looked  at. 
The  descriptions  throughout  the  chapter  are  evidently  pre- 
pared in  reference  to  a  supposed  observer,  who  watches  the 
changes  until  the  wild  and  desolate  confusion  gives  place  to 
a  world  of  perfect  order  and  harmony. 

(5.)  The  figure  is  taken  from  the  hovering  and  brooding  of 
birds  over  their  young,  in  which  sense  the  word  is  used  also 
in  the  Syriac.  Hence  the  old  mystic  representation  of  the 
world  under  the  figure  of  an  egg  may  have  been  derived. 
See  Vossius  de  Origine  et  Progressu  Idolatrise,  Lib.  I. 
cap.  V.  p.  33,  34.  edit.  Amsterd.  4to.  1642. 

(6.)  It  must  be  evident  to  the  most  inattentive  reader,  that, 
in  common  with  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  this  account 
abounds  with  figurative  language.  It  is  simple,  but  still 
poetic.  God  is  represented  as  commanding  the  various 
creations  to  lake  place,  where  the  author  undoubtedly  in- 


132  NOTES    TO   GENESIS.  [parti. 

tended  to  express  the  idea  that  they  sprang  forth  in  com- 
pUance  with  his  will  and  by  the  exertion  of  his  power. 

(7.)  The  Hebrew  term  for  heaven  is  derived  from  the 
Arabic  \J^,  to  be  high. — The  word  5''^p"l  is  rendered  by 
some  "  expanse,"  a  sense  which  suits  the  context,  and  also 
the  etymological  meaning  of  the  verb  ^'p.'^  to  expand,  beat 
out.  The  common  translation,  "  firmament,"  agrees  with 
that  of  the  Septuagint,  tfrspsiJiJ-a,  and  of  the  vulgate,  "  firma- 
mentum,"  and  is  perhaps  preferable.  If  this  be  the  writer's 
meaning,  it  will  not  follow  that  he  regarded  the  space  so 
designated  as  a  solid  body,  in  which  the  sun,  moon  and  stars 
were  immoveably  fixed :  he  speaks  of  things  as  they  appear 
to  be,  not  as  they  actually  are.  For  this  reason  I  have  not 
thought  it  necessary  to  alter  the  ordinary  version. 

The  word  ?'^P'^  occurs,  exclusively  of  its  use  in  this 
chapter,  v.  6,  7,  8,  14,  15,  17,  20,  eight  times  in  the  Old 
Testament,  namely,  Ps.  xix.  2,  cl.  1  ;  Ezek.  i.  22,  23,  25,  26, 
X.  1 ;  and  Dan.  xii.  3.  It  denotes  the  expanse  of  the  sky 
as  visible  to  an  inhabitant  of  earth,  the  space  in  which  the 
heavenly  bodies  appear  to  be.  It  is  an  inquiry  of  no  little 
interest,  in  what  sense  the  word  is  used  when  it  first  occurs 
in  this  chapter.  Does  it  here  denote  the  whole  space  visible 
from  earth,  comprising  that  in  which  are  the  fixed  stars  as 
well  as  the  luminaries  of  our  own  system?  And  does  the 
writer  intend  to  teach,  that  God  set  this  expanse  or  seem- 
ingly solid  substance,  in  which  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  were 
afterwards  immoveably  fixed,  between  two  vast  bodies  of 
water,  the  one  constituting  the  seas,  &c.,  that  belong  to 
earth,  and  the  other  forming,  as  Gesenius  says,  "  a  celestial 
ocean?"  And  is  it  in  this  same  sense  that  we  read  in  Job 
xxxvii.  18,  "hast  thou  spread  out,  ^"'Pl?!,  the  sky  which  is 
strong,  and  as  a  molten  looking  glass  ?"  and  that  the  Psalm- 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  133 

ist,  cxlviii.  4,  calls  upon  "the  waters  that  are  above  the 
heavens"  to  hymn  the  praises  of  God  ?  and  that  God  is  said 
(Ps.  civ.  3,)  to  "lay  the  beams  of  his  chambers  in  the 
waters  1" 

I  do  not  deny  that  the  language  of  the  sacred  writer,  if 
explained  independently  of  any  other  considerations  than 
such  as  are  merely  verbal,  would  admit  this  meaning.  But 
is  this  a  necessary  construction  ?  It  involves  a  view  which 
is  inconsistent  with  the  system  of  philosophy,  the  truth  of 
which  is  generally  and  on  good  grounds  admitted.  If  this 
interpretation  be  maintained,  we  must  then  adopt  a  modified 
view  of  the  author's  inspiration,  limiting  it  to  the  fact  of 
creation  and  its  general  outlines,  but  allowing  an  intermix- 
ture of  error  in  some  of  the  details ;  or  else,  in  defiance  of 
ascertained  facts,  we  must  reject  the  Copernican  system  of 
astronomy.  But  the  interpreter  is  not  driven  to  the  necessi- 
ty of  adopting  either  of  these  extremes.  If  the  word  i^^D'n 
is  sometimes  employed  in  its  comprehensive  sense  to  denote 
the  whole  visible  expanse,  including  the  region  of  the  stars, 
or  at  least  that  in  which  they  are  said  to  be  because  they 
appear  therein,  and  at  other  times  for  that  portion  of  the  at- 
mosphere in  which  vapors  float  and  clouds  are  formed, 
the  interpretation  need  not  militate  against  the  received  the- 
ory of  the  universe.  Then  the  word  in  v,  14,  15,  and  17, 
will  express  the  former  meaning,  and  in  6,  7,  and  8,  the  lat- 
ter. The  "  waters  above  the  firmament"  in  that  case  will 
not  be  "a  celestial  ocean,"  but  that  portion  of  the  fluids  of 
the  watery  mass  which  had  risen  in  the  atmosphei'e,  and 
was  then  held  in  solution,  or  floated  in  the  form  of  mists  and 
clouds.  They  may  be  said  to  be  above  the  firmament,  al- 
though at  no  very  great  elevation  from  the  earth,  because 
above  that  part  of  it  in  which  birds  usually  fly.  Pfeiffer, 
in  his  Dubia  vexata  Scriptura?  Sacrse,  4to.,  1685,  p.  7,  at- 
tempts to  make  this  interpretation  ridiculous  by  remarking, 


134  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  I. 

that  one  miffht  as  well  sav  of  a  man  immersed  in  the  midst 
of  the  sea,  that  he  was  above  the  sea,  or  of  a  buried  person, 
that  he  was  above  the  earth,  because  in  each  case  the  party 
was  above  a  part  of  the  element.  But  it  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered, that  the  language  here  is  popular,  rather  than  philo- 
sophical and  accurate ;  and  a  part  of  the  firmament  or  ex- 
panse, ^Ip"),  might  the  rather  be  put  for  the  whole  and  the 
whole  for  a  part,  according  to  circumstances,  because  the 
whole  representation  is  made  as  things  would  appear  to  be 
to  an  observer  supposed  to  be  below,  and  not  as  they  were 
in  strictness  of  speech  and  abstractedly  considered.  To  what 
extent  the  writer  supposed  the  waters  to  exist  in  the  atmos- 
phere, is  of  little  importance.  The  rising  of  mists,  which 
were  afterwards  to  descend  as  rain  to  water  the  ground,  is 
expressly  mentioned  by  him  in  ii.  G. 

(8.)  "For  signs  and  for  seasons."  This  is  doubtless  a  hen- 
diadys,  meaning  '  for  signs  of  seasons,'  in  other  words,  to 
designate  seasons.  That  anything  "  preternatural"  is  in- 
tended, is  entirely  unfounded,  either  in  the  necessary  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  or  in  the  facts  alleged  to  illustrate  such  a 
sense,  which  in  the  present  age  are  universally  allowed  to 
be  ordinary  phenomena,  arising  from  natural  causes.  It 
was  therefore  with  no  little  surprise  that  I  read  in  Professor 
Bush's  Hote  on  this  place  the  following  statement.  "  The 
lieavenly  bodies  serve  for  signs,  whenever  the  judgments  of 
God  or  extraordinary  events  are  signified  by  remarkable 
appearances  in  them.  In  this  way  eclipses  of  the  sun  and 
moon,  comets,  meteors,  falling  stars,  &c.  serve  as  sigjis,  i.  e. 
as  preternatural  tokens  or  monitions  of  the  divine  agency  in 
the  sight  of  men.  This  is  the  genuine  force  of  the  original, 
which  very  often  conveys  the  idea  of  a  miraculous  inter- 
ference." Equally  genuine  is  the  application  of  the  original 
word  to  ordinary  occurrences,  as  the  author  by  the  qualifi- 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  135 

cation  implied  in  the  phrase  "  very  often"  plainly  intimates. 
His  extraordinary  inference,  towards  the  end  of  the  same 
note,  founded  on  the  omission  of  the  word  "for,"  is  equally 
incapable  of  support.  He  considers  it  as  evidence,  that  "the 
sense  of  the  phrase  is  undoubtedly  'for  days,  even  years'; 
implying  that  a  dai/  is  often  to  be  taken  for  a  year  (!),  as  is 
the  case  in  prophetical  computation." 

Among  the  objections  to  which  the  Mosaic  history  of  the 
creation  has  been  thought  to  lie  exposed,  one  by  no  means 
trifling  is  drawn  from  the  account  of  the  formation  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  on  the  fourth  day,  while  the  creation  of 
light  is  ascribed  to  the  first.  It  has  often  been  replied,  that 
previously  to  the  creation  of  the  sun,  the  light  divided  be- 
tween the  day  and  night,  by  being  diffused  and  withdrawn 
according  to  the  will  and  power  of  God,  who  on  the  fourth 
day  concentrated  the  light  in  the  body  of  the  sun ;  and  that 
the  former  method  of  regulating  this  viciss'tude  would  have 
been  no  more  difficult  for  the  Omnipotent  than  that  which 
has  ever  since  prevailed.  The  last  remark  is  unquestiona- 
bly true,  although  the  proposed  solution  does  not  satisfy  an 
inquirer.  He  may  rejoin,  that  God  does  nothing  in  vain, 
and  that  the  recurrence  of  evening  and  morning  mentioned 
in  connexion  with  the  first  three  days  being  exactly  the 
same  as  the  following,  it  would  seem  to  have  arisen  from 
the  same  cause.  And  this  view  may  be  defended  on  either 
of  two  suppositions  :  first,  that  the  Mosaic  creation  is  that  of 
the  earth  simply,  and  that  the  heavenly  bodies  are  said  to 
have  been  formed  on  the  fourth  day,  because  on  that  day 
they  showed  themselves  through  the  purified  atmosphere  in 
all  their  glory,  as  adapted  to  shed  light  over  the  earth  and 
to  designate  divisions  of  time;*  or  secondly,  that  the  crea- 

*  The  coincidence  of  this  view  and  tliat  of  Professor  Bush  in  his  note 
on  V.  14  will  be  ihe  more  striking,  when  it  is  recollected  that  neither 
writer  had  any  knowledge  of  the  sentiments  of  the  other.    For  the  read- 


136  NOTES   TO    GENESIS.  [part  i. 

tion  of  the  heavenly  bodies  may  have  been  contemporane- 
ous with  that  of  the  earth.  The  formation  of  the  sun  may 
have  been  commenced  on  the  first  day,  and  the  hght  then 
called  into  existence  for  the  benefit  of  earth's  chaos  may 
have  flowed  from  his  orb,  its  rays  being  originally  feeble, 
but  gradually  increasing  in  strength  and  intensity,  as  his 
own  creation  and  that  of  our  globe  were  both  advancing 
towards  perfection.  There  is  nothing  in  the  third  verse 
which  requires  the  admission,  that  light  burst  at  once  in  all 
its  splendor  upon  the  unformed  material,  neither  is  such  a 
supposition  consistent  with  analogy.  Gradual  formations 
characterize  the  works  of  nature,  and  the  Mosaic  narrative 
affords  no  evidence  that  the  original  creation  was  effect- 
ed by  instantaneously  producing  the  perfectly  constructed 
creature. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  such  a  view  is  more  in  harmony 
with  the  account  of  the  creation  effected  during  the  other 
five  days,  than  that  which  assumes  the  sun,  moon  and  stars 
to  have  been  altogether  created  on  the  fourth.  On  this  sup- 
position, the  want  of  analogy  in  the  aggregate  created  on 

er's  satisfaction  I  quote  the  following:  "If  this  history  of  the  creation 
were  designed  to  describe  the  effects  of  the  six  days'  work  as  they  would 
have  ajjpcared  to  a  spectator,  had  one  been  inesent — a  supposition  ren- 
dered probable  from  its  being  said,  '  Let  the  dry  land  appear,'  (Heb.  be 
seen,)  '  when  as  yet  there  was  no  eye  to  see  it' — then  we  may  reasonably 
conclude  that  tiie  sun  was  formed  on  the  first  day,  or  perhaps  had  been 
created  even  before  our  earth,  and  was  in  fact  the  cause  of  the  vicissi- 
tude of  the  three  first  days  and  nights.  But  as  the  globe  of  the  earth 
was  during  that  time  surrounded  by  a  dens6  mass  of  mingled  air  and 
water,  the  rays  of  the  sun  would  be  intercepted;  only  a  dim  glimmer- 
ing light,  even  in  the  day  time,  would  appear,  and  the  bodies  of  the 
heavenly  luminaries  would  be  entirely  hidden,  just  as  they  now  are  in 
a  very  cloudy  day.  Let  it  be  supposed,  then,  that  on  the  fourth  day 
the  clouds,  mists,  and  vapors  were  all  cleared  away,  and  the  atmos- 
phere made  pure  and  serene,  the  sun  of  course  would  shine  forth  in  all 
his  splendor,  and  to  the  eye  of  our  imagined  spectator  would  seem  to 
have  been  just  created;  and  so  at  night  of  the  moon  and  stars."  p.  35. 


CHAP.  I— 11.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  137 

each  day  must  strike  the  most  inattentive  reader ;  and  the 
difficulty  thus  raised  in  his  mind  will  not  be  removed  by  the 
common-place  remark,  that  God  could  as  easily  create  in 
one  day  the  unnumbered  worlds  of  the  celestial  bodies  as 
the  slightest  productions  of  the  ground.  The  question  is 
not,  what  the  Almighty  can  readily  do,  but  what  view  of 
this  part  of  the  narrative  best  corresponds  with  the  repre- 
sentation made  in  the  other  parts. 

It  may  be  objected  to  this  view,  that  in  reality  it  assigns 
no  specific  creation  to  the  fourth  day,  which  merely  exhibits 
in  clear  distinctness  the  substances  previously  existing,  while 
the  same  terms  are  used,  expressive  of  creation,  which  were 
before  employed.  But  let  it  be  considered,  that  the  ,princi- 
ple  of  life  and  action  which  was  at  first  infused  into  the 
mass  would  still  be  exerting  its  energies.  The  perfection  of 
creation  w'ould  be  ever  advancing  on  the  fourth  day  as  on 
the  former  days,  until  the  celestial  worlds  broke  into  view 
from  behind  the  vanishing  veil  of  cloud  and  mistiness.* 
Appearing  for  the  first  time,  and  of  course  as  new  creations, 
they  would  be  described  as  such  in  the  same  phraseology  as 
had  been  before  used.  Besides,  the  principal  point  in  the 
author's  mind  is  the  purposes  which  they  were  intended  to 
serve  for  the  benefit  of  man.  It  is  not  so  much  their  creation 
on  that  day,  as  the  uses  to  which  they  were  to  be  put,  on  which 
he  insists.  The  next  chapter  affords  a  similar  specimen  of 
composition,  and  it  may  be  adduced  to  illustrate  the  lan- 
guage under  consideration.     The  point  to  which  the  histo- 

*  I  have  for  some  years  entertained  the  ophiion  that  this  is  the  true 
view  of  the  text.  The  conclusion  arrived  at  is  the  result  of  reflection  on 
the  history  itself  and  the  universally  acknowledged  facts  of  natural 
philosojjhy.  The  reader  will  perceive  that  I  hold  it  in  common  with 
many  others.  And  it  may  be  worthy  of  notice  that  the  same  view  was 
entertained  by  some  of  the  most  learned  fathers  of  the  Church.  See  the 
works  referred  to  in  Dr.  Wiseman's  Lectures  on  the  connexion  between 
Bcience  and  revealed  religion,  p.  178. 
18 


138  NOTES    TO   GENESIS.  [part  i. 

rian  principally  directs  his  reader's  attention  in  ii.  18 — 25,  is 
the  production  of  the  woman  as  a  suitable  partner  for  the 
man.  The  18th  verse  states  the  divine  intention  to  provide 
him  w^ith  such  a  partner.  This  is  immediately  followed  in 
the  19th  by  the  words,  "And  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord 
God  formed  every  beast  of  the  field  and  every  fowl  of  the 
air."  Does  the  sacred  writer  intend  to  teach  us  that  the 
formation  of  every  beast  and  fowl  was  subsequent  to  the 
divine  determination  just  expressed,  and  of  course  subse- 
quent to  the  creation  of  man  himself?  This  would  be  to 
contradict  the  account  of  the  creation  as  given  in  the  previ- 
ous chapter.  He  intends  to  introduce  the  narrative  of  the 
manner  in  which  God's  purpose  to  provide  man  with  a  suit- 
able companion  was  accomplished.  As  it  was  proper  for 
this  end  that  Adam  should  inspect  the  various  animals,  their 
creation  is  mentioned  in  immediate  connexion  with  their 
being  brought  to  him,  although  it  had  taken  place  before  the 
man  himself  had  been  called  into  existence.  The  same 
principle  may  be  applied  to  the  account  of  the  fourth  day's 
work.  It  is  not  necessary  to  understand  the  sacred  writer 
as  asserting  the  creation  of  the  heavenly  bodies  on  that  day, 
but  only  their  developement  on  that  day  as  adapted  to  the , 
purposes  intended,  the  creation  of  them  having  previously 
taken  place. 

It  is  probable  that  some  of  my  readers  will  consider  the 
second  of  the  above  named  suppositions  as  more  in  accord- 
ance with  the  comprehensive  language  of  the  first  verse  and 
the  general  representations  of  Scripture.  If  the  formation 
of  some  of  the  celestial  bodies  began  at  the  same  time  with 
that  of  the  earth,  and  if  on  the  fourth  day  they  were  com- 
pleted, or  sufficiently  so  for  the  purposes  intended,  a  popu- 
lar use  of  language  would  allow  expressions  denoting  cre- 
ation to  be  applied  to  the  perfection  of  their  structure  and 
organization.    Whether  this  view  would  not  involve  the 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  139 

interpreter  in  other  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  physical 
constitution  of  the  universe,  requires  his  serious  conside- 
ration. 

If  the  view  maintained  in  this  note  be  admitted  to  be  true, 
it  follows,  that  the  opinion  which  presumes  the  author  to 
have  regarded  the  planetary  worlds  as  fixtures  in  the  solid 
arch  of  heaven  and  appendages  to  this  globe,  has  not  the 
least  foundation  in  this  part  of  the  sacred  narrative. 

(9.)  The  use  of  the  plural  in  this  passage  has  been  va- 
riously accounted  for.  Rosenmueller  considers  it  as  noth- 
ing more  than  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew,  in  common  with 
other  languages,  to  employ  the  plural  occasionally  for  the 
singular.  He  refers  to  Job  xviii.  2, 3,  "  How  long  ere  ije  make 
nq^^Pvl  an  end  of  words?  Mark  ye  &c.  ^^"'5^.  Where- 
fore are  we — reputed  vile  in  your  sight,  tl5'^5'^15?5";  2  Sam. 
xvi.  20,  "  Then  said  Absalom  to  Ahithophel,  give  counsel 
among  you,  Qjb  ^nn" ;  and  xxiv.  14,  "  And  David  said 
unto  Gad,  I  am  in  a  great  strait :  let  us  fall,  b^bSl"  But  all 
these  places  are  explicable  on  other  grounds.  Bildad  ad- 
dresses Job  in  the  plural,  because  he  connects  him  with  all 
who  held  the  same  sentiments;  as,  in  Isa.  viii.  11,  12,  13, 
God  addresses  the  faithful  in  the  person  of  his  prophet. 
"  The  Lord  spake  to  me — and  instructed  me,— saying,  say  ije 
not— neither  fear  ye,  &c. ;  let  the  Lord  of  hosts  be  your  fear 
and — your  dread."  Absalom  seeks  counsel  of  Ahithophel's 
coadjutors  as  well  as  of  himself ;  and  David,  in  regarding  the 
divine  indignation  as  directed  against  his  own  person,  has 
reference  also  to  the  exposure  of  his  people.  Some  other 
passages  which  have  been  referred  to  are  also  not  altogether 
satisfactory  in  favor  of  such  usage,  as  the  speaker  may 
mentally  connect  others  with  himself  See  Gen.  xxix.  27, 
Num.  xxii.  6,  Dan.  ii.  36,  and  1  Kings  iii.  26,  in  the  Hebrew. 


140  NOTES   TO   GENESIS.  [part  i. 

Besides,  although  an  interchangeable  use  of  singular  and 
plural  may  occasionally  take  place,  as  in  Cant.  i.  4,  "  Draw  me, 
we  will  run  after  thee ;  the  king  hath  brought  me  into  his 
chambers  ,  we  will  be  glad  and  rejoice  in  thee,"  and  in  se- 
veral other  places ;  yet  it  does  not  apply  in  the  present  case, 
as  the  whole  clause  which  expresses  the  divine  determination 
is  in  the  plural. 

Some  suppose  the  plural  to  be  used  here  in  accommoda- 
tion to  the  language  of  human  dignitaries.  Thus  Aben 
Ezra  on  v.  1,  speaking  of  the  form  Q^flb^.      "iHi^  'tD'^^bi^ 

fir  ffiitsi  s^n"-!  p'SJb  Q'^nb^  ^2  id:pi^  mbi^  i55^!S)2^ 
pirb  iin^i  mniD  pi  ib  t)^  ptsb  bD  ^d  ptrbn  ^^m^s 
litrbm  Q^nn  ^itrb  biir^n  m^b  \^'pT\  I'oi^^ti^  r^^ib 
t]^ni  \mii  Y:/2n  r^^  bii^ri  ninTt)  n^D  pT  b5j^>)2t25^ 
"iji  a^^ni  ir^b  bnr^n  yj  n^ib  nnD  ^m  trnpn  "jV^JbDi 

"As  we  afterwards  meet  with  mi^Jj^,  we  know  that  Q'^H^JJ^ 
is  the  plural  form  from  that  root.  Such  is  the  usage  of  the 
language ;  for  every  language  has  a  mode  of  expressing 
honorable  distinction.  In  some  foreign  tongues  this  is  done 
by  the  inferior  addressing  his  superior  in  the  plural,  and, 
in  Arabic,  kings  and  great  men  employ  the  same  num- 
ber. This  is  also  the  case  in  Hebrew."  The  same  prin- 
ciple has  been  applied  also  to  other  texts ;  as,  for  exam- 
ple, to  2  Sam.  vii.  22,  "  according  to  all  that  we  have 
heard  w^ith  our  ears."  But  in  a  prayer  to  God  remark- 
able for  its  profound  humility,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  David  would  employ  the  plural  as  indicative  of  majesty, 
and  such  an  use  never  elsewhere  appears  in  the  whole  prayer, 
which  is  of  considerable  length.  Undoubtedly,  in  this  clause, 
he  connects  himself  with  the  nation,  as  the  next  verse  plainly 
proves :  "  And  what  one  nation  in  the  earth  is  like  thy  people, 
&c."  Neither  are  the  instances  which  have  been  adduced 
in  order  to  show  that  the  same  use  of  the  plural  is  found  in 
Chaldee,  satisfactory.     Daniel,  ii.  23,  in  his  thanksgiving  to 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  141 

God,  cannot  be  supposed  to  use  language  indicating  his  own 
dignity.  He  associates  with  himself  his  friends,  whose  in- 
tercessions with  God  he  had  before  desired,  (v.  17,  18,) 
when  he  says :  "  thou  hast  made  known  unto  us  the  king's 
matter."  And  so  also  in  v.  36,  "  we  will  tell  the  interpreta- 
tion," the  plural  may  be  used  for  the  same  reason ;  or 
Daniel  may  appear  as  the  representative  of  the  wise  men. 
The  whole  tenor  of  his  address  shows  that  he  had  no  inten- 
tion of  assuming  dignity  in  the  presence  of  the  Babylonian 
monarch.  Another  text,  Ezra.  iv.  18,  may  perhaps  bear  upon 
the  principle,  but  even  this  is  not  sufficiently  explicit  to  prove 
it ;  and  if  it  were,  it  is  of  too  late  a  date  to  illustrate  the 
language  of  Genesis,  and  being  Chaldaic,  could  not  settle 
Hebrew  usage.  King  Artaxerxes  does  employ  the  plural 
of  himself:  "  the  letter  which  ye  sent  unto  zis."  But  most 
probably  he  associates  with  himself  his  royal  council.  The 
language  immediately  following  is  in  the  singular :  "  hath 
been  plainly  read  before  me,  and  /commanded,  &c."  Another 
instance  of  similar  usage  may  be  found  in  Gen.  xxxix.  14, 
although  I  am  not  aware  that  it  has  ever  been  cited  in  re- 
ference to  the  principle  under  consideration.  Potiphar's 
wife  cries  out  to  her  attendants,  "  see  (^i^^^  the  plural,)  he 
hath  brought  in  a  Hebrew  unto  us,  to  mock  us."  But 
undoubtedly  she  comprehends  her  attendants,  and  speaks 
of  the  asserted  insult  as  directed  against  all  the  family. 
Immediately  afterwards,  speaking  solel}'"  of  herself,  she 
employs  throughout  the  singular  number.  It  is  very  ques- 
tionable, therefore,  whether  this  royal  use  of  the  plural  im- 
plying authority  or  distinction,  existed  in  very  ancient 
periods  ;  and  modern  usage  can  have  no  weight. 

Others  again  regard  the  phraseology  as  founded  on  the 
scriptural  doctrine  of  the  plurality  of  persons  in  the  divine 
essence,  one  being  supposed  to  address  another.  This  view 
agrees  not   only  with  the  plain  declarations  of  the  New 


142  NOTES    TO    GENEaiS.  [part  I. 

Testament  in  which  this  doctrine  is  avowed,  but  also  with 
occasional  intimations  of  it  given  in  the  Old,  and  is  in 
character  with  the  relative  importance  of  the  act  of  creation 
which  immediately  follows.  Under  these  circumstances,  I 
cannot  venture  to  reject  such  an  interpretation.  It  may  in- 
deed be,  that  the  plural  form  is  employed  to  denote  the 
plenitude  of  powers  existing  in  God,  in  addition  to  the 
plurality  of  persons.  The  Supreme  may  be  distinguished 
as  the  being  who  manifests  himself  everywhere  and  under 
various  forms  in  the  powers  of  nature,  and  also  in  the  au- 
thorities of  heaven.  The  multiplicity  of  God's  works,  as 
well  as  the  mysterious  nature  of  his  subsistence,  may  have 
had  an  influence  on  this  form  of  language,  by  which  his 
nature  and  character  are  expressed.  See  Drechsler's  Ein- 
heit  und  Aechtheit  der  Genesis,  p.  14, 15. 

There  is,  however,  another  view  of  this  subject,  which 
appears  to  be  well  worthy  of  consideration.  Rashi  explains 
the  use  of  the  plural  on  the  ground  of  divine  condescension. 
The  supreme  being  is  considered  as  an  elevated  monarch, 
surrounded  by  his  nobles,  as  the  great  father  in  the  midst  of 
his  family.  The  solemnity  and  deliberation  with  which  he 
enters  on  the  creation  of  man  are  described  by  representing 
the  deity  as  if  he  had  condescended  to  consult  with  his 
most  distinguished  angels  previously  to  the  act.  The  image 
of  royalty  surrounded  by  its  dignitaries,  is  sometimes  em- 
ployed to  delineate  the  more  vividly  the  character  and  pro- 
ceedings of  God.  This  figure  illustrates  the  language  of 
our  Lord  respecting  little  children:  "their  angels  do  always 
behold  the  face  of  my  father  who  is  in  heaven,"  Matt,  xviii. 
10  ;  that  is,  they  are  his  most  intimate  attendants,  his  cour- 
tiers ever  near  his  throne  and  favored  with  his  presence. 
Comp.  Esther  i.  14,  "  The  next  unto  him  (the  king,) — the 
seven  princes  of  Persia  and  Media,  which  saw  the  Jang's 
face  and  which  sat  the  first  in  the  kingdom" ;  and  Jer.  lii.  25. 


CHAP.  I— II..  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  143 

"  Seven  men  of  them  that  were  near  the  king's  person ;" 
literally,  'who  see  the  king's  face,'  'l572'ri~'^5^  "^l^'l.  It  is  also 
the  ground  of  the  exhibition  made  by  the  prophet  Micaiah 
to  Ahab  in  1  Kings,  xxii.  19,  "  I  saw  the  Lord  sitting  on  his 
throne,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven  standing  by  him  on  his 
right  hand  and  on  his  left."  And  in  Isaiah,  chap,  vi,,  we 
find  the  same  representation.  The  prophet  sees  the  Lord 
sitting  on  his  throne  and  attended  by  the  Seraphim.  The 
language  of  the  8th  verse  is  particularly  worthy  of  notice 
in  illustration  of  that  under  review  :  "  I  heard  the  voice  of 
the  Lord,  saying,  whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for 
us  ?"  The  holy  Seraphs  are  so  intimately  connected  with 
the  great  king,  the  Lord  of  hosts,  that  his  mission  is  repre- 
sented as  theirs.  The  purposes,  interests,  and  measures  of 
both  are  identified,  and  the  acts,  which,  properly  speaking, 
are  those  of  the  head,  are  figuratively  attributed  to  the 
members.  Thus  also  the  triumphs  of  Christ,  and  the  judg- 
ment which  he  is  to  institute,  have  been  supposed  by  some 
to  be  ascribed  to  his  people,  on-  the  ground  of  that  spiritual 
union  by  which  both  parties  become  so  intimately  asso- 
ciated as  to  be  incapable  of  disunion.*  The  creation  of 
man  is  of  course  the  act  of  God  alone,  but  the  principle 
illustrated  allows  us  to  consider  the  language  which  ex- 
presses his  intention  as  an  appeal  to  his  holy  attendants. 

*  The  language  of  Vitringa,  in  his  dissertation,  De  sceptre  Judas 
superstite,  nato  Christo,  in  his  Observationes  Sacras,  Lib.  iv.  cap.  vi. 
§  vii.  p.  956,  is  so  well  adapted  to  express  my  meaning,  that  I  cannot 
forbear  citing  it.  Christi  Jesu  regnum  aliquod  est  in  mundo,  cujus 
subditi  sunt  omnes  electi  credentes.  Hi  proin  regnum  Christi  dicuntur. 
Sed  iidem  illi  in  Sanctis  Uteris  dicuntur  reges,  et  cum  Christo  rege  suo 
regnare.  Non  alia  quidem  de  causa,  quam  quod  per  fidem  et  amorem 
tarn  arete  cum  Christo  voluntatibus  suis  conjuncti  sint,  ut  quod  Chrigtus 
agit  dominus,  ipsi  agere ;  quee  Christo  Jesu  ex  regni  administratione 
nascitur  gloria,  ipsorum  gloria;  quam  Christus  exercet  potestatem, 
eandem  ipsi  in  et  cum  Christo  exercere  censeantur. 


144  NOTES   TO    GENESIS.  [part  i. 

They  exult  in  the  wisdom  and  power  of  the  maker,  "  the 
sons  of  God  shout  for  joy."'  Job,  xxxviii.  7.  They  partici- 
pate in  the  pure  delight  with  which  the  creator  contemplates 
his  work,  and  feel  the  same  complacency  as  if  the  act  had 
been  their  own. 

(10.)  The  image  of  God  is  a  phrase  expressive  of  excel- 
lence and  authority.  This  is  implied  in  ix.  6,  where  the 
creation  of  man  in  God's  image  is  stated  as  a  reason  for  the 
capital  punishment  of  the  murderer :  "  Whoso  sheddeth 
man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed ;  for  in  the 
image  of  God  made  he  man."  In  the  eighth  Psalm,  also, 
supremacy  over  the  inferior  creatures  is  represented  as  a 
part  of  that  "  glory  and  honor"  with  which  man  was  origi- 
nally "  crowned."  This  is  evident,  moreover,  from  the 
history  before  us,  where  authority  over  the  inferior  animals 
is  immediately  connected  with  the  image  of  God,  by  which 
man  was  distinguished.  Knowledge  and  wisdom  must 
necessarily  be  implied  ;  not,  indeed,  of  that  exalted  and  com- 
prehensive kind  which  has  often  been  claimed  for  our  first 
parent,  but  a  degree  correspondent  with  that  perfection  in 
which  all  the  works  of  God  were  made.  It  seems  incon- 
sistent to  suppose,  with  Hengstenberg  (Christologie  des 
Alten  Testaments,  Vol.  1.  p.  34,  in  Keith's  Translation,  p.  32,) 
and  others,  that  while  Adam's  body  was  created  perfect, 
his  intellect  was  in  the  condition  of  childhood.  And  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  equally  objectionable  to  assume  with 
Maimonides,  (JlllilJl  ^llt)'^,  grounds  of  the  law,  chap.  iv. 
§  14,  p.  45,  edit.  Vorst.  Amstelod.  1638,  4to.)  that  the  intel- 
lectual principle  constituted  the  form  in  which  man  was 
created:  ITSiH  u]^^^  H^^t^"^  T]'J^T\.  The  most  important 
features  of  the  divine  image  in  the  first  man  were  doubtless 
his  moral  purity  and  holiness.  These  qualities  are  referred 
to  in  Eccles.  vii.  29,  Eph.  iv.  24,  Col.  iii.  10.     In   the  two 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES     TO    GENESIS.  145 

latter  texts  they  are  spoken  of  as  distinguishing  "  the  new 
man  which  is  created  after  God,"  in  contradistinction  to  the 
"  old  man,"  the  sinful  character  which  predominates  in  the 
natural  mind  ;  and  the  apostle  evidently  refers  to  the  image 
of  God  in  which  man  was  originally  made. 

Many  divines,  both  ancient  and  modern,  have  maintained, 
that  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  constituted  the  most  important 
feature  of  the  divine  image  in  which  Adam  was  created.  See 
Bishop  Bull's  Discourse  on  the  state  of  man  before  the  fall. 
I  have  not  thought  proper  to  advance  this  opinion,  as  I  am  not 
satisfied  that  it  can  be  supported  by  sufficient  scriptural  proof. 
Certainly  Gen.  ii.  7,  so  often  alleged  in  defence  of  it,  is  altoge- 
ther inadequate.  It  expresses  the  divine  origin  of  the  living 
principle  and  soul  of  our  first  parent. 

To  represent  the  image  of  God  as  consisting  in  uprightness 
of  external  person,  in  contradistinction  to  the  general  form  of 
other  animals,  presumes  an  ignorance  of  the  divine  being  in- 
consistent with  the  character  of  the  writer,  and  gives  a  con- 
temptible sense,  alike  unworthy  of  the  book  and  incapable  of 
proof.  Such  childish  conceptions  of  God  are  very  little  in  har- 
mony with  the  majesty,  wisdom,  and  power,  ascribed  to  him 
in  the  representations  throughout  the  chapter.  Indeed,  it  may 
well  be  doubted,  whether  the  erect  form  in  which  man  was 
created,  was  even  intended  to  indicate  thatilivine  image  in 
which  his  soul  was  originally  made,  although  such  an  opin- 
ion has  been  often  expressed  and  is  avowed  by  Augustin. 
Si  ergo  et  hominem  de  terra  et  bestias  de  terra  ipse  forma- 
vit,  quid  habet  homo  excellentius  in  hac  re,  nisi  quod  ipse 
ad  imaginem  Dei  creatus  est  ?  Nee  tamen  hoc  secundum 
corpus,  sed  secundum  intellectum  mentis,  de  quo  post  lo- 
quemur.  Quanquam  et  in  ipso  corpore  habeat  quandam 
proprietatem,  quae  hoc  indicet,  quod  erecta  statura  factus 
est,  ut  hoc  ipso  admoneretur,  non  sibi  terrena  esse  sectanda, 
velut  pecora,  quorum  voluptas  omnis  ex  terra  est,  unde  in 
19 


146  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  I. 

alvum  cuncta  prona  atque  prostrata  sunt.  Congruit  ergo, 
&c.  De  Genesi  ad  literam,  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xii.  Opera,  Tom. 
III.  p.  155,  edit.  Bened.  The  ground  of  distinction  which  is 
supposed  to  be  found  in  the  form  of  the  inferior  creatures, 
is  insufficient  as  an  argument,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  true  of 
all,  especially  of  birds. 

I  consider  the  language  of  Dr.  Palfrey,  in  his  Acade- 
mical Lectures  on  the  Jewish  Scriptures  and  Antiquities* 
p.  224,  225,  (Lect.  X.),  as  utterly  unfounded  and  dis- 
honorable to  the  intellectual  and  religious  character  of  the 
great  Hebrew  lawgiver.  "  The  mind  of  Moses  had  not 
yet"  (the  period  referred  to  in  Ex.  xxxiii.)  been  elevated  to 
the  conception  of  a  purely  spiritual  deity.  How  should  it 
be  ?  How  can  we  represent  to  ourselves  the  probability  of 
such  an  immense  progress  having  been  made  by  him  beyond 
the  universal  apprehensions  of  his  age  ?  Moses  could  have 
had  no  idea  but  of  a  deity  with  a  body ;  a  body  glorious 
indeed,  but  definite,  limited,  and  visible."  Indeed  !  Did 
Moses  receive  any  knowledge  of  God  from  revelation,  or 
was  he  left  to  the  guidance  of  his  natural  powers  ?  It  is 
only  on  the  latter  supposition  that  the  author's  inquiry  has 
any  force  ;  and  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  add,  that  this  sup- 
position implies  a  denial  of  his  inspiration  and  divine  au- 
thority. "  The  doctrine  alone  of  Moses,  so  remote  from  the 
sentiments  and  philosophy  of  his  age,  and  so  agreeable  to 
truth,  creates  a  strong  presumption  of  his  having  received 
it  by  immediate  revelation."  Dissertation  on  Miracles  by 
Hugh  Farmer,  chap.  iii.  sect.  iii.  p.  148,  third  edition,  Lon- 
don, 1810,  12mo. 

(11.)  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  explain  these  verses 
so  as  to  comprehend  the  grant  of  animal  food  to  man,  as 
well  as  vegetable.  But  the  interpretation  is  evidently  forced. 
The  express  grant  of  animal  food  was  given  after  the  flood, 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  147 

ix.  3  :  "  every  living  thing  that  moveth  shall  be  meat  for 
you  ;"  but  probably  such  food  had  been  used  before,  as  it  is 
fitted  to  the  human  constitution,  and  otherwise  a  dispropor- 
tionate increase  of  cattle  must  have  taken  place.  Indeed, 
it  is  likely  from  ix.  4,  that  some  of  the  antediluvians  prac- 
tised cruel  abuses,  and  ate  the  living  flesh. 

(12.)  In  the  second  verse,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  and 
the  Septuagint  and  Syriac  versions,  read  sixth  day  instead 
of  seventh.  But  this  is  probably  a  departure  from  the  ori- 
ginal text,  intended  to  remove  the  supposed  difficulty  of 
God's  being  said  to  have  finished  on  the  seventh  day.  The 
apparent  contradiction  between  this  and  what  is  said  in  the 
last  of  the  first  chapter,  is  removed  by  considering  the  verb 
here  as  in  the  pluperfect. 

The  paradisaical  origin  of  the  sabbath  as  a  day  of  holy 
rest  and  worship,  is  clearly  to  be  inferred  from  the  text. 
The  supposition  of  anticipative  reference  to  the  fourth  com- 
mandment is  an  unnatural  assumption.  As  the  Sabbath  is 
an  institution  alike  useful  and  important  for  mankind  in 
general,  it  were  unreasonable  to  limit  its  benefits  to  one 
nation  without  explicit  authority.  The  intimations,  which 
occasionally  appear  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  of  more  than 
ordinary  solemnity  being  attached  to  the  number  seven,  and 
particularly  its  use  in  designating  periods  of  time,  are  best 
explained  on  this  ground.  The  sabbath  is  not  indeed  di- 
rectly mentioned  in  the  history  of  the  patriarchs,  but  it  is 
probably  alluded  to ;  and  if  not,  the  remarkable  brevity  of  the 
narrative  diminishes  the  force  of  any  argument  which  might 
be  drawn  from  the  omission.  The  manner  in  which  the 
Hebrew  law  commences,  "  remember  the  sabbath  day," 
(Exod.  XX.  8,)  seems  to  imply  that  the  institution  was  not 
altogether  new,  although  it  had  fallen  greatly  into  desuetude ; 
and  this  view  of  the  subject  affords  the  best  exposition  of 


148  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  i. 

the  narrative,  (chap,  xvi.)  in  which  the  sabbath  is  originally 
introduced.  It  is  true,  that  sometimes  the  law  is  urged  on 
the  ground  of  a  different  sanction  from  that  first  presented, 
as  in  Deut.  v.  15,  when  the  deliverance  of  the  Hebrews 
from  the  slavery  of  Egypt  is  stated  as  the  motive :  "  Re- 
member that  thou  wast  a  servant  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and 
that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence,  through  a 
mighty  hand,  and  by  a  stretched-out  arm  ;  therefore  the 
Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee  to  keep  the  sabbath-day." 
But  this  is  not  exclusive  of  the  original  sanction.  It  adds 
to  it  by  an  appeal  to  the  gratitude  of  the  Hebrews.  Thus 
also  we  celebrate  the  Christian  sabbath  or  Lord's  day,  in 
commemoration  of  our  Saviours  resurrection,  as  well  as  of 
the  creation  of  all  things. 

Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  met  with  Professor  J.  G. 
Palfrey's  Academical  Lectures  on  the  Jewish  Scriptures 
and  Antiquities:  Boston,  1838.  In  the  ninth  lecture  of  this 
work,  he  states  his  view  of  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  sab- 
bath, which  he  considers  as  an  institution  purely  Mosaic,  re- 
quiring simply  cessation  from  labor,  not  at  all  of  a  religious 
character,  and  in  this  respect  "  entirely  different"  from  "  the 
Christian  Lord's-day."  Although  it  would  not  comport 
with  the  design  of  these  notes  to  discuss  this  whole  subject 
copiously,  yet  I  cannot  but  remark  on  some  points  in  the 
Professor's  statements  and  course  of  argument,  which  appear 
to  me  wholly  unwarranted. 

Dr.  Palfrey  allows  the  deliverance  from  Egypt  and  the 
designation  of  a  covenant  between  God  and  the  Hebrew 
people,  to  be  the  distinguishing  characteristics  of  the  Jewish 
sabbath,  p.  188,  194.  And  yet  he  does  not  hesitate  to  say 
as  follows:  "A  Jew  who  should  sit  perfectly  unemployed, 
or  even  who  should  sleep,  through  the  day,  would  have  kept 
the  sabbath  with  a  punctilious  observance."  p.  186.  And 
again :  "  Rest  from  labor,  (which  may  be  mere  indolent  re- 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  149 

pose,)  I  find  to  be  the  essence  of  the  Jewish  observance." 
p.  197.  Is  it  reasonable  to  believe  that  an  institution  so  un- 
meaning in  the  character  of  its  requisition,  which  the  brute 
creation  could  be  made  to  observe  as  punctually  and  fully  as 
man,  should  have  been  established  by  the  allwise,and  enjoined 
on  the  Hebrews,  by  solemn  sanctions,  as  commemorative  of 
a  great  national  deliverance,  and  as  a  perpetual  sign  of  cove- 
nant relationship  with  God  ?  I  should  be  at  a  loss  to  vindi- 
cate the  wisdom  or  propriety  of  an  institution  having  such 
important  objects  in  view,  "  the  essence  of  the  observance" 
of  which  "  may  be  mere  indolent  repose" 

The  author  objects  to  the  application  in  favor  of  the  sab- 
bath being  used  as  a  day  of  "  religious  services,"  which  has 
often  been  made  of  the  question  put  to  the  Shunammitess  by 
her  husband  :  "  Wherefore  wilt  thou  go  to  him  (the  prophet) 
to-day  ?  it  is  neither  new  moon  nor  sabbath."  2  Kings  iv. 
23.  "  Nothing  is  said  or  implied  of  worship.  The  sabbaths 
and  the  new  moons  were  both  holidays,  and  therefore  suita- 
ble for  the  offering  of  presents  and  the  visiting  of  friends ; 
and  accordingly,  the  question  is  asked,  why  a  day  should  be 
chosen  for  visiting  Elisha  which  was  not  the  customary 
day."  p.  186,  note.  It  will  not  be  contended  that  any  expli- 
cit and  definite  recognition  of  divine  worship  on  the  sabbath 
is  contained  in  the  text  quoted ;  and  neither  is  there  any 
such  recognition  of  what  the  author  supposes  to  be  the  os- 
tensible object  of  the  visit.  But  when  we  read  in  Isa.  Ixvi. 
23,  "it  shall  come  to  pass  that  from  one  new  moon  to 
another,  and  from  one  sabbath  to  another,  shall  all  flesh 
come  to  worship  before  me,  saith  the  Lord,"  can  it  be  denied 
that  sabbaths  and  new  moons  were  at  that  time  regarded 
as  well  known  and  established  seasons  of  worship  ?  And  is 
it  not  most  reasonable  to  infer  that  the  connexion  of  the  two 
feasts  in  the  former  passage,  exactly  analogous  to  that  in  the 
latter,  implies  that  they  were  both  so  used  in  the  time  of  the 


150  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  I. 

Shunammitess  ?  And  this,  be  it  remembered,  was  only 
about  a  century  and  a  half  before  Isaiah  wrote.*  "We 
have  therefore,  in  the  places  before  us,  ordinary  practice 
founded  on  the  law,  and  exhibiting  the  national  construction 
then  ofiven  to  the  law.  And  wherein  could  this  construction 
have  beeji  found  but  in  the  natural  meaning  of  the  language 
of  the  law,  the  "  sanctification"  of  the  sabbath  which  it  an- 
nounces, and  the  "  holy  convocation"  which  it  requires  ?  See 
Levit.  xxiii.  3.  On  this  latter  point  the  Professor  remarks,  that 
the  "  holy  convocation  appears  to  mean  no  more  than  that 
there  should  be  an  assemblage  of  such  as  might  be  within  con- 
venient distance,  to  witness  the  one  national  sacrifice,  oifered  at 
the  one  place  of  national  worship ;  or  perhaps  that  there  should 
be  festive  meetings  of  friends,  a  use  to  which  we  know  that  the 
day  was  actually  put.  See  Luke  xiv.  1 ;  Hos.  ii.  11."  But 
the  command  respecting  the  sacrifice  of  which  he  speaks, 
does  not  occur  in  the  chapter  of  Leviticus.  It  is  to  be  found 
in  Num.  xxviii.  9, 10,  to  which  the  phrase  in  Leviticus  can- 
not possibly  refer ;  nor  is  it  credible  that  it  should  refer  to 
the  same  thing,  the  sacrifice  itself,  which  would  then  un- 
doubtedly have  been  specified  in  the  context.  But  so  far 
from  this  being  the  case,  it  is  evidently  implied  that  the  holy 
convocation  is  an  essential  constituent  of  the  sabbatical  requi- 
sitions, as  also  of  the  other  festivals  mentioned  in  the  chapter. 
With  the  text  in  Leviticus  above  referred  to,  compare  v.  2, 4, 
7,  8,  21,  24,  27,  35,  36,  37.  To  limit  such  convocation  to  an 
assemblage  at  the  national  altar,  is  therefore  inadmissible ; 
because,  while  some  of  the  festivals  were  celebrated  only  in 
that  place,  others  were  kept  wherever  it  might  be  conve- 
nient to  the  panty. 

*  The  genuineness  of  tlie  latter  part  of  llie  book  of  Isaiah,  which 
by  universal  consent  has,  until  late  years,  been  ascribed  to  the  prophet, 
is  here  presumed ;  and  I  tliink  has  been  satisfactorily  maintained  against 
all  the  objections  which  German  neologiaus  have  raised  against  it. 


CHAP.  I— 11.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  151 

The  references  by  which  the  author  endeavors  to  prove 
the  second  alternative  suggested  by  him,  after  Le  Clerc  and 
others,  that  the  '  holy  convocation'  was  a  "  festive  meeting 
of  friends,"  can  at  the  very  most  only  show  that  such  meet- 
ings did  occasionally  take  place  on  the  sabbath,  but  surely 
not  that  they  constituted  an  essential  part  of  the  requisition 
of  the  law.  If  this  were  the  case,  it  were  difficult  to  see 
how  the  unemployed  or  sleeping  Jew  could  have  punctili- 
ously observed  the  sabbath.  But  the  applicability  of  the 
references  is  itself  doubtful.  The  first  only  shows,  with  va- 
rious other  places  in  the  Gospels,  that  our  Lord  occasionally 
accepted  an  invitation  to  a  meal  on  the  sabbath.  That  any 
'  festivity'  was  connected  with  those  occasions  cannot  be 
proved.  In  the  only  other  passage  referred  to,  the  prophet 
classes  sabbaths  with  all  other  solemn  feasts,  and  declares 
that  the  "  mirth"  with  which  their  celebration  was  charac- 
terized should  "  cease."  Doubtless  the  Jewish  festivals  were 
intended  to  be  occasions  of  devout  and  grateful  joy,  marked 
at  the  same  time  by  a  generous,  though  rational  allowance 
of  the  gratifications  of  life.  What  we  know  of  human  na- 
ture will  not  suffer  us  to  doubt,  that  they  were  perverted  to 
extravagant  and  luxurious  indulgence,  in  proportion  as  the 
people  became  vicious  and  threw  off  the  restraints  of  reli- 
gion. And  this  is  probably  part  of  the  mirth  to  which  Ho- 
sea  alludes,  although  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  he  predicts 
the  loss  of  all  the  '  gladness'  which  their  joyful  celebrations 
brought  along  with  them.  But  that  the  sabbath  could  not 
have  been  intended  to  be  kept  with  much  festivity  or  luxu- 
rious gratification  of  the  appetite,  would  seem  quite  evident 
from  the  law  which  forbade  a  fire  to  be  kindled  on  that  day. 
See  Exod.  xxxv.  3.  The  spirit  of  the  language  in  Isa.  Iviii. 
15,  is  also  adverse  to  such  a  supposition.  "  If  thou  turn  away 
thy  foot  from  the  sabbath,  from  doing  thy  pleasure  on  my 
holy  day,  and  call  the  sabbath  a  delight,  the  holy  of  the  Lord, 


152  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  i. 

honorable,  and  shalt  honor  him,  not  doing  thine  own  ways, 
nor  finding  thine  own  pleasure,  nor  speaking  thine  own 
words  ;  then  shalt  thou  delight  thyself  in  the  Lord,  &c." 

In  considering  that  view  of  the  sabbath  which  supposes  it 
to  be  of  paradisaical  origin,  as  given  in  the  former  part  of 
this  note,  the  Professor  explains  the  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
"God  blessed  and  sanctified  the  seventh  day,"  thus,  "he 
pronounced  a  blessing  upon  it, — he  commended  it, — because 
(this  is  agreeable  to  the  whole  anthropomorphitic  cast  of 
the  passage)  it  was  for  him  a  day  of  leisure  after  six  days 
of  toil.  'And  he  sanctified  it.'  How?  By  making  it  a 
holy  institution?  This  is  the  gloss  put  upon  the  word  by 
force  of  an  opinion  derived  from  some  subsequent  texts,  but 
the  word  itself  implies  no  such  thing.  It  signifies  merely 
'to  set  apart,'  'to  sequester,'  to  some  distinctive  use,  just  as 
we  might  speak  of  dedicating  or  devoting  a  day  to  amuse- 
ment, to  leisure,  to  study.*  And  I  submit  with  confidence, 
that,  if  we  were  not  biassed  to  a  peculiar  interpretation  of 
this  text  by  views  preconceived  from  other  sources,  we 
should  not  think  of  regarding  it  as  speaking  of  the  appoint- 
ment, at  any  time,  or  in  any  way,  of  a  religious  institution 
for  man.  We  should  understand  it  but  as  declaring,  either 
that  God  (for  himself,  and  not  for  man,)  made  the  last  day 
of  the  first  week  (for  the  time  being,  and  not  for  future  time,) 
happy  and  sacred,  peculiar,  distinct  from  the  days  which 
had  preceded,  by  resting  upon  it ;  or  that  he  called  that  day 
a  blessed  and  a  holy,  distinguished  day,  on  which  he  thus 
found  repose  from  labor."  p.  189, 190. 

According  to  the  author,  then,  the  meaning  of  the  words, 
"  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,"  is  simply  this,  '  God  com- 
mended the  seventh  day  of  the  first  week.'     This  is  very  in- 

*  We  should  perhaps  hardly  speak  of  consecrating  a  day  to  any  but 
a  religious  use.  But  the  French  freely  use  their  corresponding  word 
with  all  the  latitude  wlaich  we  give  to  '  dedicate,'  and  '  devote.' 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESig.  153 

telligible.  A  day  may  be  commended,  praised,  pronounced 
blessed,  because  it  is  in  use  or  has  been  used  as  a  period  of 
rest.  But  what  meaning  does  he  attach  to  the  phrase, 
"  sanctified  it  V  In  reality,  none  at  all  beyond  what  is  im- 
plied in  the  term  "  blessed."  "  He  made  it  happy  and  sa- 
cred, or  he  called  it  blessed  and  holy,  by  resting  upon  it ;" 
that  is,  the  resting  of  God  is  itself  the  consecration.  He 
does  indeed  say  that  the  word  signifies,  "to  set  apart,  de- 
vote." But  such  "  sequestration,  distinctive  use,"  implies 
some  object,  which,  according  to  the  author's  view,  can  be 
none  other  than  the  "  rest"  which  "  God  himself  enjoyed." 
How,  then,  does  such  a  sense  of  the  phrase  accord  with 
what  follows  ?  '  God  pronounced  a  blessing  upon  the  seventh 
day,  and  set  it  apart  for  his  own  rest,  because  that  in  it  he 
rested  from  all  his  work.'  Thus  the  fact  stated  is  made  to 
appear  as  a  reason  for  itself! 

The  text  declares  in  language  sufficiently  perspicuous, 
not  that  God's  resting  on  that  individual  day  is  identical 
with  the  blessing  and  setting  apart  of  it,  but  that  he  blessed 
and  set  it  apart  because  he  had  rested  on  it ;  and  this  setting 
of  it  apart  for  the  specified  reason  must  have  been  for  some 
object  other  than  the  reason  itself. 

What  this  object  was,  is  quite  clear  from  other  texts, 
which  have  plainly  a  retrospective  reference  to  this  in  Gene- 
sis :  "  In  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  &c.,  and 
rested  the  seventh  day,  ivherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the 
seventh  day  and  hallowed  it,"  (that  is,  sanctified  it ;  for  both 
the  verbs  are  the  same  as  those  used  in  Genesis.)  Ex.  xx. 
11.  "Wherefore  the  children  of  Israel  shall  keep  the  sab- 
bath, &c. ;  it  is  a  sign  between  me  and  the  children  of  Israel 
forever ;  for  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth." 
Ex.  xxxi.  16,17. 

Dr.  Palfrey  would  remove  the  difficulty  which  these  pas- 
sages and  the  one  under  consideration  present  to  his  view, 
20 


154  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [pakt  I. 

in  a  very  summary  way.  The  old  theory  of  anticipation,  he 
very  properly  does  not  seem  to  regard  as  worthy  of  notice. 
But  the  knot  that  cannot  be  untied,  must  be  cut.  He  main- 
tains that  both  these  texts  are  spurious,  and  advances  his 
interpretation  of  the  one  in  Genesis,  "  supposing  the  latter 
half  of  the  second  verse  and  the  third  to  be  genuine,"  plainly 
enough  intimating  his  suspicion  that  they  are  not.  As  his 
course  of  argument  tends,  in  my  opinion,  to  unsettle  our 
confidence  in  the  genuineness  of  such  passages  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch as  may  seem  to  us  inconsistent  with  others,  or  may 
be  irreconcileable  with  our  own  views,  I  must  beg  the  read- 
er's indulgence  while  I  endeavor  briefly  to  examine  it.  In 
order  to  enable  him  to  judge  for  himself,  and  to  give  at  the 
same  time  a  full  representation  of  the  author's  reasoning, 
I  shall  extract  the  whole  argument. 

"  I  would  ask  whether  any  one  can  compare  this  verse 
(Ex.  XX.  11,)  carefully  with  its  parallel  in  Deuteronomy,  and 
then  be  confident  in  the  opinion  that  it  did  make  an  original 
part  of  the  decalogue.  In  Deuteronomy  (v.  15.)  we  find  no 
such  words,  but  instead  of  them  the  following,  which  accord 
entirely  with  the  view  of  the  institution  first  given  above : 
'And  remember  that  thou  wert  a  servant  in  the  land  of 
Egypt,  and  that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence 
with  a  mighty  hand,  and  by  a  stretched-out  arm  ;  therefore 
the  Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee  to  keep  the  sabbath- 
day.' 

"  Will  it  be  said,  that  one  of  these  texts  cannot  be  used  to 
invalidate  the  other,  inasmuch  as  the  reason  given  in  Exo- 
dus, and  that  in  Deuteronomy,  were  both  good,  and  not  mu- 
tually inconsistent,  reasons  for  the  institution ;  that  they  were 
both  accordingly  announced  on  Sinai ;  and  that  in  Exodus 
the  mention  of  only  one  was  preferred,  in  Deuteronomy  only 
of  the  other?  I  apprehend  that,  under  the  circumstances, 
this  view  is  altoffether  untenable.     What  the  writer  of  the 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  •     NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  155 

Pentateuch  is  doing  in  both  these  instances,  is  not  prescri- 
bing an  institution,  and  assigning  reasons  for  it.  In  that 
case  he  might,  no  doubt,  with  perfect  propriety,  select,  from 
among  good  reasons,  one  to  be  urged  at  one  time,  and 
another  at  another  time.  But  what  he  has  undertaken  to 
do,  is  to  relate  to  us  a  fact ;  to  tell  us  what  God  declared, 
by  a  supernatural  voice,  at  a  certain  place  and  time ;  and 
those  too,  I  may  add,  a  place  and  time  when  every  word 
was  to  be  chosen,  to  make  the  most  effectual  impression. 
Under  these  circumstances,  can  it  be  maintained  that  Mo- 
ses, designing  to  act  the  part  of  a  veracious  narrator,  in  ac- 
quainting us  with  specific  luords  ivhich  God  spake,*  could 
give  important  words  in  one  place,  then  omit  them  in 
another,  where  he  is  relating  the  same  occurrence,  and  give 
us  other  important  words,  significant  of  a  quite  diflferent 
cause  of  a  material  provision  of  his  law,  in  their  stead  ? 

"  I  have  said,  that  Moses  undertakes,  in  these  two  texts,  if 
he  wrote  both,  to  apprize  us  of  words  which  God  spake*  in  the 
people's  hearing ;  and  yet  they  differ  from  each  other.  But 
we  are  told  still  more  respecting  the  specific  character  of 
the  words  in  question.  God  '  wrote  them,'  it  is  said,  (that 
is,  wrote  the  words  recited  in  the  context,)  '  in  two  tables  of 
stone.'  Deut.  v.  22.  If  he  wrote  the  precise  words  recorded 
in  Deuteronomy  as  the  decalogue — those  words,  and  no 
other,  (and  under  the  circumstances  it  seems  unavoidable  to 
interpret  with  all  this  precision,) — then  the  decalogue  did 
not  contain  the  words  attached  in  Exodus  to  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, in  which  that  precept  is  said  to  be  founded  on 
the  event  of  God's  creation  of  the  world.  And,  as  if  to 
preclude  all  doubt  upon  the  point,  it  is  even  declared,  in  the 
passage  last  quoted,  that  no  other  words  were  used  than  the 
words  which  it  specifies.     '  These  words  the  Lord  spake — 

*  The  use  of  the  italics  is  the  author's. 


156  NOTES    TO    GENESIS,  [part  I. 

* 

and  he  added  no  more ;  and  he  wrote  them  in  two  tables  of 
stone.' 

"  If,  then,  under  the  circumstances,  the  essential  character 
of  an  exact  narrative  precludes  the  supposition  of  both  these 
passages  having  been  written  by  Moses,  which  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  having  proceeded  from  his  hand  ?  Certainly  no 
reasons  appear  why  the  authenticity  of  that  in  Exodus 
should  be  asserted  to  the  prejudice  of  the  other  ;  and  if  the 
question  had  to  be  left  altogether  in  suspense,  I  apprehend 
that  the  remarks  which  have  been  made  would  show  it  to 
be  altogether  unsafe  to  argue,  from  the  passage  in  Exodus, 
that  the  sabbatical  institution  was  contemporaneous  with  the 
creation  of  the  world.  But  further;  in  comparing  the  claims 
of  the  two  passages  to  be  considered  authentic,  one  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  other,  we  cannot  lose  sight  of  the  fact,  that 
the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  presents  the  same  view  of  the 
sabbath  with  that  exhibited  so  fully  in  the  texts  quoted 
above :  a  circumstance  which  affords  strong  presumption  of 
its  superior  authority. 

"  These  views,  I  think,  dispose  one  strongly  to  the  conclu- 
sion, that  the  verse  of  Exodus  in  question  was  not  written 
by  Moses,  but  by  some  later  hand.  Nothing  could  be  more 
natural  than  for  some  possessor  of  his  writings,  struck  by  an 
apparent  coincidence  between  the  command  to  keep  the 
Jewish  sabbath,  as  inserted  in  the  decalogue,  and  God's  re- 
posing on  the  seventh  day,  as  related  at  the  beginning  of 
Genesis,  to  have  recorded  his  remark  as  a  gloss  in  the  mar- 
gin of  his  book,  whence,  as  is  known  to  have  been  the  case 
with  some  of  the  most  important  interpolations  of  the  Bible, 
it  subsequently  found  its  way  into  the  body  of  the  page. 
And  I  will  not  disguise  my  opinion,  that  the  history  of  the 
text  in  Deuteronomy  was  probably  the  same,  though  it  pre- 
sents what  I  believe  to  be  the  true  view  of  the  sabbath.  I 
have  argued  that  both  texts  could  not  be  genuine.     I  think 


CHAP.  I— 11.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  157 

it  most  likely  that  neither  is  so  ;  and  my  chief  reason  for  this 
persuasion  is,  that,  supposing  the  genuineness  of  either,  it 
presents  a  fragment  diflering  in  its  tone  and  structure  from 
all  the  rest  of  the  decalogue,  since  the  decalogue,  in  every 
other  case,  studying  the  utmost  brevity,  deals  only  in  laws 
and  their  sanctions,  without  exhibiting  the  reasons  on  which 
they  were  founded :  a  topic  which  seems  foreign  to  its 
purpose. 

"  And  the  same  view,  I  think,  is  to  be  taken,  perhaps  with 
even  greater  confidence,  of  the  only  other  important  text 
bearing  upon  this  point,  Ex.  xxxi.  17.  I  will  not  say  that 
this  text  is  rendered  suspicious  by  the  abrupt  change  of  per- 
sons which  it  exhibits,  indicating  the  second  clause  to  be  but 
a  gloss,  though  certainly  its  structure  is  strikingly  consistent 
with  that  view.  But,  if  I  mistake  not,  the  second  clause 
which  is  all  that  concerns  us  in  this  inquiry,  is  a  palpable 
contradiction  to  the  first,  such  as  strongly  to  discredit  the 
supposition  that  Moses  was  its  writer.  '  The  children  of 
Israel,'  it  is  said,  '  shall  keep  the  sabbath,  to  observe  the 
sabbath  throughout  their  generations,  for  a  perpetual  cove- 
nant ;  it  is  a  sign  between  me  and  the  children  of  Israel  for- 
ever.' And  why  were  the  children  of  Israel  to  observe  this 
sign,  wdiich  was  a  token  of  their  covenant  ivith  God?  'For,' 
the  text  goes  on; '  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and 
earth,  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  rested,  and  was  refreshed,' 
{took  breath.)  That  is,  for  a  sign  between  me  and  them- 
selves, they  are  to  keep  a  day,  in  which  all  the  world, 
as  much  as  themselves,  has  an  interest.  I  can  scarcely  en- 
tertain a  doubt  that  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  in  question 
was,  in  the  first  instance,  a  note  upon  the  passage  to  which 
we  now  find  it  attached,  suggested  by  the  reading  of  the 
related  passage  in  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis. 

"  I  have  thus  submitted  what  seems  to  me  good  reason  for 
believing  that  neither  of  the  two  texts,  quoted  from  the  law 


158  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  I. 

to  prove  the  ante-Mosaic  origin  of  the  sabbatical  institution, 
originally  made  part  of  that  document,  and  for  adhering  ac- 
cordingly to  the  conclusion,  that  the  Jewish  sabbath  was 
simply  a  Jewish  festival.  The  course  which  I  take  might 
be  more  questionable,  were  it  not  precisely  the  same,  which 
reasons  of  the  case, — scarcely,  I  think,  more  urgent  than 
those  which  have  application  here, — compel  us  to  take  with 
respect  to  several  texts,  for  which  the  mere  external  evi- 
dence is  as  complete  as  it  is  for  any  part  of  the  Pentateuch, 
but  which,  notwithstanding,  no  one  can  deny  to  be  spurious, 
provided  he  is  of  opinion  that  Moses  wrote  the  book  which 
contains  them.  There  is  no  other  alternative.  We  must 
either  refer  the  whole  Pentateuch  to  a  later  age,  or  we  must 
allow  that,  after  Moses  had  composed  that  volume,  it  shared, 
in  some  degree,  the  lot  of  other  books,  and  received  occa- 
sional interpolations,  originating  often  in  marginal  comments. 
Believing  that  we  have  sufficient  proof  of  Moses  having 
written  the  books,  we  accordingly  adopt  that  theory,  along 
with  its  necessary  incident  of  the  spuriousness  of  certain 
parts  ;  and  this  we  do  the  more  readily,  because  often  a  little 
observation  shows  us  that  these  parts  are  of  a  parenthetical 
character,  not  breaking  by  their  removal  the  continuity  of 
the  sense,  and  so  presenting  precisely  the  appearance  which 
glosses  of  foreign  origin  would  naturally  we"ar."  pp.  190-195. 
Preparatory  to  a  review  of  the  Professor's  arguments,  I 
would  also  ask,  whether  any  one  can  compare  those  three 
texts,  and  not  perceive  and  feel  that  they  exactly  harmonize 
with  each  other,  and  also  with  the  opinion  of  a  paradisaical 
origin  of  the  sabbath  as  a  day  of  holy  rest  and  worship. 
If  spurious,  then,  the  probability  is  exceedingly  strong,  that 
they  were  introduced  with  the  view  of  supporting  this 
opinion ;  which,  consequently,  must  have  been  pretty  gene- 
rally admitted  in  the  time  of  their  author.  This,  of  course, 
will  carry  up  the  opinion  itself  to  a  very  early  period ;  if  it 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  159 

be  allowed  that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  descended  from 
copies  existing  among  the  ten  tribes  before  the  Assyrian 
captivity,  or  even  the  Babylonian,  to  a  period  when  the 
Hebrew  nation  flourished  in  its  greatness.  And  we  may 
reasonably  ask,  whence  such  an  opinion  originated,  if  it  be 
unfounded  in  scripture,  as  it  must  be  if  these  texts  are 
spurious.  To  the  great  deliverance  from  Egypt,  the  glo- 
rious independence  of  the  people,  the  only  fact  which  the 
sabbath  was  instituted  to  commemorate, — why  should  the 
Hebrews  append  a  reference  to  the  period  of  time  employed 
by  God  in  the  formation  of  the  world,  and  to  the  day  of 
rest  immediately  subsequent,  thus  calling  off  the  national 
mind  from  the  single  purpose  intended,  to  another  altogether 
different  ?  All  embarrassment  on  this  point  is  removed  by 
admitting  the  commonly  received  opinion. 

I  am  willing  to  allow  that  the  text  of  the  New  Testament 
is  supported  on  external  grounds,  much  more  susceptible  of 
careful  observation  and  determinate  settlement  than  that  of 
the  Old.  This  will  probably  be  granted  by  all  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  data  on  which  each  is  maintained  to  be 
generally  correct.  In  the  language  of  the  author,  an  in- 
terpolation may  exist  in  the  Pentateuch  "  for  which  the 
external  evidence  is  as  complete  as  it  is  for  any  part  of  it. 
We  must  allow  that  it  shared  in  some  degree  the  lot  of  other 
books,  and  received  occasional  interpolations."  But  then, 
in  every  such  case,  satisfactory  reasons  for  supposing  inter- 
polation must  be  given ;  and  here  Dr.  Palfrey  has  failed  in 
the  case  under  consideration. 

The  whole  ground  on  which  he  maintains  the  spurious- 
ness  of  the  three  texts,  is  their  alleged  inconsistency  with 
Deut.  V.  15,  and  the  representations  so  often  made  of 
the  sabbath  as  a  day  of  rest.*  Unless  he  has  substantiated 
his  allegation,  their  genuineness  remains  unaffected. 

*  Oa  the  same  ground,  Gabler,  in  his  Versuche  iiber  the  Schop- 


160  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  !. 

The  view  commonly  taken  of  the  two  texts  m  Exodus 
and  Deuteronomy,  that  each  assigns  a  separate  reason  for 
observing  the  sabbath  not  exclusive  of  the  other,*  is  con- 
sidered by  the  author  as  "  untenable.  The  writer  is  not 
assigning  reasons  for  an  institution,  but  acquainting  us  with 
specific  words  which  God  spake."  He  particularly  insists 
upon  this  point.  "  Moses  undertakes  to  apprize  us  of  words 
which  God  spake  in  the  people's  hearing ;"  and  he  "  wrote 
them,  that  is,  the  words  recited — the  precise  words  re- 
corded— those  words,  and  no  other.  These  words  the  Lord 
spake — and  he  added  no  more." 

But  I  appeal  to  any  candid  and  liberal  interpreter  to  say, 
whether  such  an  assumption  is  not  unreasonable  and  con- 
trary to  the  general  use  of  scriptural  language.  When  we 
read,  that  '  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  a  prophet,  say- 
ing,' or,  '  the  Lord  said  unto  a  prophet,'  does  any  one  sup- 
pose that  the  language  following  such  an  introduction  are 
the  identical  words  in  which  the  communication  was 
audibly  conveyed  to  the  prophet's  ear  1  To  refute  such  an 
extravagant  notion  in  the  present  day  would  be  to  waste 
the  time  and  patience  of  the  reader.  And  I  apprehend  that 
few  would  be  more  willing  than  the  Professor  himself  to 
dispense  with  argument  on  such  a  point.  And  yet,  I  can- 
not see  any  essential  difference  -between  this  case  and  that 
of  giving  the  decalogue.     In  the  latter  the  circumstances  of 


fungsgeschichte,  p.  63,  rejects  Ex.  xx.  8  ss.  and  xxxi.  12 — 17,  because 
in  Deut.  v.  12 — 16,  Moses  mentions  another  design  of  the  sabbath. 
See  Jahn's  Introduction,  p.  215,  (note  b)  ;  or  his  Einleitung  in  die 
Gottlichen  Biicher  des  Alten  Bundes,  Theil  II.  p.  136. 

*  Maimonides  lias  elated  these  two  reasons  with  remarkable  distinct- 
ness and  propriety.  They  may  be  found  in  his  Moreli  Nevochim, 
Part  II.  chap.  31,  p.  46,  Berlin  edition,  283,  Buxtorf's  Transla- 
tion. Patrick,  in  his  note  on  Ex.  xx.  11,  has  placed  his  remarks 
within  the  reach  of  the  English  reader. 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  161 

solemnity,  of  terror,  of  sublimity,  and  consequently  of  im- 
pression, are  undoubtedly  greater.  The  publicity  of  the 
audible  communication  is  also  a  peculiar  and  an  important 
circumstance.  Still,  it  remains  to  be  proved,  that  the  author 
of  the  Pentateuch  intended  to  deliver  the  very  words  in 
which  the  ten  commandments  were  embodied.  If  he  have 
clothed  them  in  terms  best  fitted  to  express  the  laws  in- 
tended to  be  promulged,  he  might  employ  the  language 
which  he  has  used,  in  evident  consistency  with  the  ordinary 
phraseology  of  scripture,  even  if  the  words  had  been  se- 
lected by  himself.  Certain  language,  certain  words,  are 
constantly  said  to  be  used,  when  the  meaning  evidently  is, 
that  the  sentiments  which  they  express  are  avowed  or 
cherished.  See,  among  a  multitude  of  illustrations,  Deut. 
xxxiii.  9,  Isa.  xxviii.  15.  The  terms  '  word'  and  '  thing'  are 
often  equivalent,  and  used  in  our  translation  to  denote  the 
same  Hebrew  expression  "^IZlT  We  have  an  illustration  of 
this  in  Ex.  xxxv.  1,4:"  These  are  the  words  d'^'l^'^H  ;"  and, 
"  this  is  the  thi?ig  ^13'^n."  The  former  of  these  texts, 
together  with  the  two  verses  immediately  following,  is  so 
strikingly  applicable  to  the  point  in  question,  that  I  must  be 
allowed  to  quote  them  in  full.  "  These  are  the  words  which 
the  Lord  hath  commanded,  that  ye  should  do  them.  Six 
days  shall  work  be  done,  but  on  the  seventh  day  there  shall 
be  to  you  an  holy  day,  a  sabbath  of  rest  to  the  Lord :  who- 
soever doeth  work  therein  shall  be  put  to  death.  Ye  shall 
kindle  no  fire  throughout  your  habitations  upon  the  sabbath 
day."  On  the  ground  which  Dr.  Palfrey  assumes,  the  pro- 
hibition of  a  fire  on  the  sabbath  must  also  have  been  audi- 
bly enunciated  by  God  himself;  or  rather,  this  text  also  must 
be  stricken  out  of  the  Pentateuch,  because  it  contains  matter 
additional  to  the  very  words  supposed  to  have  been  uttered, 
of  which  it  is  "  even  declared,  as  if  to  preclude  all  doubt 
upon  the  point,"  (says  the  author,)  "  ajid  he  added  no  moi^e" 
21 


162  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  I. 

If  we  maintain  that  the  language  in  which  the  decalogue  is 
contained  in  Deuteronomy  is  the  very  words  in  which  it 
was  uttered  on  Sinai,  then  most  certainly  the  language  in 
Exodus  (chap,  xx.)  cannot  be  the  very  words,  for  they 
differ  in  several  particulars  from  the  former,  as  any  one 
may  see  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  them.  And 
were  it  really  necessary  "  to  interpret  with  all  this  precis- 
ion," I  submit  whether  we  should  not  rather  suppose  the 
chapter  in  Exodus  to  contain  the  identical  words,  because  it 
is  the  history  of  the  giving  of  the  law,  of  the  very  original 
publication  of  it,  whereas  that  in  Deuteronomy  is  only  the 
re-statement  of  the  fact  made  by  Moses  to  the  Israelites  long 
after  it  occurred. 

Here,  in  passing,  I  may  be  allowed  to  express  my  firm 
persuasion,  that  not  a  few  able  commentators  have  per- 
plexed themselves  with  difficulties  leading  to  forced  con- 
structions of  texts  in  themselves  sufficiently  plain,  on  the 
supposition  that  verbal  harmony  was  to  be  expected,  where 
the  sacred  writers  intended  simply  to  express  the  same 
thought,  or  to  make  the  same  general  representation.  A 
comparison  of  2  Sam.  vii.  with  1  Chron.  xvii,  xxviii.  3 — 7, 
will  afford  an  illustration  to  any  one  who  is  tolerably  well 
acquainted  with  commentaries. 

Thus  far  I  have  considered  the  point  in  question  in  refer- 
ence to  the  ordinary  scriptural  use  of  language.  But  I 
ought  not  to  omit  the  fact  particularly  important  in  this 
case,  that  the  very  term  rendered  loords  is  actually  the  one 
employed  by  the  divine  historian  to  express  the  command- 
ments themselves.  Thus,  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  29,  we  have  for  "the 
ten  commandments,"  tD'^'li'^!!  illffl^^ ;  and  so  in  Deut.  iv. 
13,  and  x.  4,  in  both  which  places  these  same  "  ten  com- 
mandments" or  '  words,'  Q'^llZll,  are  said  to  have  been 
written  on  the  "  two  tables  of  stone."  And  it  is  especially 
worthy  of  notice,  that  in  the  very  verse  on  the  latter  clause 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS-  163 

of  which  Dr.  Palfrey  lays  such  stress  (Deut.  v.  22,  in  the 
Heb.  19,)  the  very  same  term  occurs  in  the  very  same 
sense.  "  These  woi^ds  (commandments,  Q'^'li'^n,)  the  Lord 
spake  unto  all  your  assembly,  &c."  Of  course,  when  Moses 
says  :  "  and  he  added  no  more  ;  and  he  wrote  them  in  two 
tables  of  stone,"  he  means  to  teach  us,  that  the  ten  previously 
recited  commandments  constitute  the  whole  of  the  law 
which  was  in  that  manner  preserved.  Whether  one  series 
of  terms  is  employed  in  exhibiting  them  or  another,  is  there- 
fore of  little  or  no  consequence. 

But  although  Dr.  Palfrey  has  argued  against  the  text  in 
Exodus  from  that  in  Deuteronomy,  his  persuasion  is  that 
neither  is  genuine,  because  "  the  decalogue  in  every  other 
case,  studying  the  utmost  brevity,  deals  only  in  laws  and 
their  sanctions,"  while  this  "exhibits  the  reasons  on  which  the 
law  was  founded,  a  topic  which  seems  foreign  to  its  purpose." 

If,  indeed,  the  external  evidence  were  of  such  a  kind  as  to 
throw  suspicion  on  the  genuineness  of  the  text,  the  Pro- 
fessor's argument  might  be  allowed  a  place  ;  although,  even 
in  that  case,  I  think  the  importance  to  be  attached  to  it 
would  be  very  inconsiderable.  The  circumstances  of  the 
Israelites  may  have  been  such  as  to  afford  sufficient  cause 
for  giving  the  reasons  of  this  particular  law.  Their  long 
residence  in  Egypt  may  have  weakened  both  their  regard 
for  the  sabbatical  institution,  and  their  knowledge  of  the 
grounds  on  which  it  was  established ;  and  it  may  have  been 
highly  expedient  to  impress  these  considerations  on  their 
minds.  And  the  positive  nature  of  the  law,  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  moral  character  of  all  the  others,  may  have 
added  another  motive  leading  to  the  introduction  of  reasons 
in  this  particular  case.  Besides,  the  lawgiver  is  not  so 
studious  of  brevity  as  he  is  represented  to  be.  The  second 
commandment  goes  very  much  into  detail,  in  the  represen. 
tation  both  of  the  law  and  its  sanction.     Neither  can  we 


164  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  I. 

argue  from  any  peculiarity  in  the  manner  of  representing  a 
law.  Several  contain  merely  the  words  of  the  statute ; 
others  exhibit,  in  more  or  less  length,  the  sanctions  ;  to  the 
fifth  alone,  a  direct  and  positive  promise  is  added ;  and  in 
the  fourth,  a  reason  for  the  institution  which  it  prescribes. 
The  author's  "  persuasion"  is  therefore  not  warranted  by  the 
grounds  alleged. 

The  latter  clause  of  Ex.  xxxi.  17,  is  considered  as  spuri- 
ous, because  it  "  is  a  palpable  contradiction  to  the  first." 
But  this  assertion  rests  on  very  inadequate  proof.  The  ar^. 
gument  alleged  is,  that  the  observance  of  an  institution  in- 
tended as  a  sign  of  covenant  relation  between  God  and  the 
Israelites,  could  not  be  required  on  the  ground  stated,  which 
would  equally  well  apply  to  all  mankind.  It  is  a  sufficient 
answer  to  this  objection,  that  the  sabbath  was  revived  among 
the  Israelites  after  its  observance  had  been  partly  lost,  and 
then  it  was  made  a  sign.  Thus  also  circumcision  was 
enjoined  on  Abraham's  whole  family,  and  yet,  when  the 
covenant  relation  became  limited  to  the  Israelites,  it  became 
a  sign  between  God  and  them.  Any  institution  divinely 
estabUshed  by  Moses  might  have  been  constituted  a  sign 
between  God  and  his  people,  even  if  it  had  been  observed 
in  earlier  patriarchal  times.  Its  prior  establishment  and 
more  general  use  are  quite  consistent  with  its  re-establish- 
ment with  this  distinctive  object  in  view.  That  part  of  the 
verse  of  the  spuriousness  of  which  Dr.  Palfrey  "  scarcely 
entertains  a  doubt,"  gives  a  general  reason  for  the  sabbati- 
cal institution  ;  the  other  states  its  particular  intent  in  refer*- 
ence  to  the  Israelites.  Surely  nothing  like  palpable  contra- 
diction can  be  proved. 

The  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation  has  been  supposed  to 
be  contradicted  by  geological  investigations,  demonstrating 
that  long  periods  of  time  must  have  been  required  for  the 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  165 

lives  of  those  successions  of  animal  and  vegetable  substan- 
ces, and  for  those  mineral  productions,  the  existence  of 
which  is  proved  by  organic  and  fossil  remains  still  in  being ; 
and  also  for  other  phenomena,  which  an  examination  of  the 
structure  of  the  earth  exhibits.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
some  of  the  best  geologists  maintain,  that  the  present  state 
of  the  science  proves  the  facts  which  have  been  discovered 
to  be  in  harmony  with  the  scriptural  account  properly  un- 
derstood. Various  views  of  this  account  have  had  their 
respective  advocates.  A  clear  and  comprehensive  exhibi- 
tion of  these  views  may  be  seen,  in  an  article  on  "  The  Con- 
nexion between  Geology  and  the  Mosaic  History  of  the 
Creation,  by  Edward  Hitchcock,  Professor  of  Chemistry 
and  Natural  History  in  Amherst  College,"  published  in  the 
Biblical  Repository  and  Quarterly  Observer  for  October, 
1835.*  Of  these  various  views,  two  may  be  regarded 
as  most  entitled  to  respect.  The  one  supposes  the  first 
verse  to  relate  the  original  creation  of  the  material  which 
formed  the  substance  of  the  world,  and  the  remainder  to  be 
a  history  of  its  arranged  and  orderly  construction,  at  some 
subsequent  period,  leaving  sufficient  time  between  the  two 
for  the  production  of  the  various  phenomena.  The  other 
connects  the  first  verse  with  the  following  in  order  of  time, 
and  interprets  the  days  of  distinct  periods,  sufficiently  long 
to  admit  of  the  geological  facts  being  explained.  If  the 
phrase,  "  the  evening  and  the  morning,"  which  occurs  so 
often  in  this  narrative,  be  interpreted  literally,  (and  this  is  in 
accordance  with  the  narrative  in  general,  and  indeed  with 
the  general  contents  of  the  whole  book  of  Genesis,)  the  con- 
clusion is  irresistible,  that  it  designates  the  period  of  one 
revolution  of  the  earth  on  its  axis  ;  the  time  ordinarily  un- 
derstood by  the  phrase  '  day  and   night,'  vv)(Pr,iis^ov.     It  is 

*  This  instructive  paper  did  not  come  under  my  notice  until  some 
time  after  I  had  written  the  above  analysis  and  notes. 


166  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  I. 

the  opinion  of  several  scientific  men,  and  of  some  commen- 
tators, that  the  term  '  day '  is  "  equivalent  to  a  period  of 
undefined  extent,"  and  that,  thus,  the  sacred  writer  speaks  of 
"  six  indefinite  days  or  periods  made  up  of  an  equally  in- 
definite number  of  common  or  twenty-four-hour  days." 
This  view  is  defended  by  Professor  Bush  in  his  note  on 
Gen.  i.  5,  and  is  given  in  his  language.  But  it  is  incapable 
of  support,  if  the  narrative  be  literal.  True  it  is  that  the 
term  '  day,'  in  Hebrew  as  in  other  languages,  is  often  used 
for  a  period  of  time  of  undefined  or  unknown  extent,  and  so 
is  also  the  term  '  hour ;'  as  in  the  phrases  "  the  day  that  the 
Lord  God  made,  &c."  "  the  day  that  I  brought  you  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,"  "  the  day  of  the  Lord  cometh,  &c.," 
"  the  hour  cometh,  &c. ;"  and  in  common  parlance  we  say, 
"  such  an  one  has  had  his  day,'  '  his  day  is  past.'  But  the 
succession  of  days  here  mentioned  to  the  seventh  as  much 
precludes  any  such  supposition  in  this  case,  and  obliges  us, 
if  we  adhere  to  a  literal  sense,  to  comprehend  the  whole  in 
one  week,  as  would  the  consecutive  notice  of  hours,  from 
one  to  twelve,  oblige  us  to  understand  the  aggregate  as 
denoting  one  popular  day.  It  is  said  that  "  the  true  import 
of  the  numeral  Ifl^  one,  seems  in  several  instances  to  be 
that  of  certain,  peculiar,  special,  Lat.  quidam."  This  adjunct 
sense  to  its  ordinary  numeral  meaning  may  perhaps  be  oc- 
casionally admitted,  but  very  seldom,  and  never  unless  clearly 
intimated  by  the  context  or  nature  of  the  subject.  The  use 
of  the  cardinal  one  for  the  ordinal  fo^st  in  v.  5,  may  be  ex- 
plained by  supposing  that  the  historian,  after  mentioning  the 
formation  of  light,  its  separation  from  darkness,  and  the 
name  by  which  each  was  denoted,  proceeds  to  say,  that 
God  having  advanced  so  far  in  the  act  of  creation,  "  the 
evening  and  the  morning  were  Tlliii  'DV  day  one"  Rec- 
koning aftervi^ards  from  this  one  day  inclusive,  he  uses  the 
ordinals   second,    third,  &c.      Comp.  Tit.  iii.  10,  m-sto,  /xi'av 


CHAP.  I— 11.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  167 

* 

xai  SsvTs^av,  after  one  and  the  second.  This  method  of  ex- 
planation is  not  indeed  necessary,  as  the  cardinal  one  is 
several  times  used  for  the  ordinal  Jirst,  of  which  it  may  be 
sufficient  to  give  an  instance  from  Gen.  viii.  5.  "tU'inb  Tni5<!3 
on  the  first  (lit.  one)  of  the  month."  The  learned  commen- 
tator referred  to  endeavors  to  maintain  his  position  by 
quoting  "Dan.  viii.  13,  [3]  :  there  stood  before  me  a  ram, 
Heb.  IT]^  b^S^,  a  certain  ram,  that  is,  a  ram  of  a  peculiar 
description,  one  having  two  horns  of  unequal  height."  But 
it  is  too  plain  to  require  proof,  that  the  peculiarity  of  this 
ram  is  not  denoted  by  the  term  "IH!^,  M^hich  is  very  pro- 
perly rendered  a,  by  a  usage  not  at  all  uncommon ;  its  pe- 
culiar characteristic  is  afterwards  expressly  stated.  The  next 
passage  cited  is  also  by  no  means  satisfactory.  "  Ezek.  vii.  5: 
*  an  evil,  an  only  evil,  behold,  is  come.'  Heb.  ilHi^  T\'$'^ 
one  evil,  that  is,  an  evil  of  a  unique  and  unwonted  nature." 
But  the  peculiarity  of  the  evil  is  shown  rather  from  the  repe- 
tition of  the  word  which  expresses  it,  il!^'^,  than  from  the  use  of 
ins*^.  The  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew  is,  '  an  evil, 
evil,  (ilS^'l  i^nSJiJ  *^^'l)  behold,  is  come.'  A  similar  repe- 
tition occurs  in  the  next  verse  :  "  an  end  is  come,  the  end 
is  come,"  {Tp.\\  ^12.  ^"3.  yp),  and  this  is  dwelt  upon  at  the 
end  of  the  verse  :  "  behold,  it  is  come,"  and  in  the  seventh : 
"  the  morning  is  come — the  time  is  come"  If  the  numeral 
be  intended  to  intimate  the  extraordinary  character  of  the 
evil,  doubtless  the  repetition  is  much  better  adapted  to  make 
the  intended  impression.  The  next  passage  appealed  to,  is 
Cant.  vi.  9.  But  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  numeral 
is  intended  to  represent  the  bride  in  any  other  light  than  that 
of  her  mother's  only  daughter.  The  Hebrew  literally  ren- 
dered is  as  follows :  '  one  is  she,  my  dove,  my  perfect,  one 
is  she  of  her  mother  ;'  then,  as  might  naturally  be  supposed 
of  an  only  daughter,  '  the  choice,  (the  darUng,)  is  she  of  her 


168  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [parti. 

that  bare  her.'  It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that  what  is 
said  in  viii.  8,  may  be  a  valid  objection  to  this  view  ;  but  the 
want  of  sufficient  data  to  prove  the  "little"  one  there  intro- 
duced to  have  been  sister  of  the  bride  eulogized  in  vi.  9, 
renders  the  objection  uncertain,  to  say  the  least.  But  the 
apparent  opposition  between  the  "  one"  all-worthy  object  of 
the  bride-groom's  regard,  and  the  multiplicity  of  "  queens, 
concubines,  and  virgins"  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse, 
is  in  favor  of  the  Professor's  opinion.  In  this  passage,  there- 
fore, as  in  Job.  xxiii.  13,  ^H!!^  may  imply  the  excellence  of 
the  party  spoken  of,  which  the  "context  expressly  asserts. 
Four  texts  are  afterwards  referred  to.  The  first  is  Gen. 
xxxvii.  20,  where  Joseph's  brothers  propose  to  "  slay  him 
and  cast  him  into  some  pit  ;"  literally,  one  of  the  pits, 
Snii^in  irisJ^^  ;  the  second  is  1  Kings  xix.  4,  "  under  a  (flHiS?) 
juniper  tree;"  the  third  is  1  Kings  xx.  13,  "there  came  a 
(IHi^)  prophet  unto  Ahab  ;"  and  the  last,  Dan.  viii.  13, 
"  I  heard  one  saint  speaking,  and  another  saint  said,  &c." 
where  in  both  cases  the  Hebrew  is  ^Hi^.  Did  the  Professor 
imagine  that  the  pit,  the  juniper  tree,  the  prophet,  and  the 
two  saints,  were  each  "  peculiar,  especially  distinguished 
from  other"  things  "of  the  same  classes?"  It  is  evident 
that  these  passages  prove  nothing  to  the  purpose,  and  the 
reader  on  examining  them  is  utterly  at  a  loss  to  perceive 
their  bearing  on  the  usage  intended  to  be  proved.  But  if 
the  usage  could  be  admitted  and  applied  to  Gen.  i,  5,  the 
author's  inference  that  "the  evenincf  and  the  mornincj  con- 
stituted  a  period  of  time  of  indefinite  length,"  would  be 
limited  to  what  is  called  "  the  first  day,"  unless  the  argument 
for  such  usage  were  rested  on  the  application  of  the  term 
'  day,'  as  no  such  usage  is  pleaded  for  the  other  numerals. 

The  length  of  time  allotted  to  each  one  of  the  revolutions 
designated  by  the  term  '  day,'  is  not  indeed  determined. 
Still,  it  cannot  be  so  far  extended  as  to  meet  the  demands 


CHAP.  I— 11. 3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  169 

of  geological  science,  while  at  the  same  time  the  authority 
of  the  inspired  historian  is  supported,  without  involving  con- 
sequences inconsistent  with  the  form  and  density  of  the 
earth.  If  the  expression  "  morning  and  evening,"  and  the 
term  "  day,"  could  possibly  be  explained  figuratively,  it  could 
only  be  on  the  supposition  that  this  section  of  the  book  ori- 
ginally existed  as  an  independent  document,  and  therefore 
is  not  necessarily  to  be  subjected  in  every  part  to  the  same 
laws  of  interpretation  as  are  to  be  applied  to  the  Pentateuch 
in  general.  Such  an  explanation  assumes  that  the  account 
is  allegorical  in  respect  to  the  designation  of  time,  but  in 
other  respects  historical.  But  if  it  were  an  independent 
document,  written  by  some  very  ancient  patriarch,  the  fact 
of  its  being  incorporated  into  the  Pentateuch  by  Moses,  will 
perhaps  be  considered  as  making  the  assumption  of  partial 
allegory  forced  and  unnatural.  This  would  seem  to  be 
reasonable,  but  it  is  not  a  necessary  inference  ;  for  Moses 
may  have  incorporated  it  in  his  work  without  the  least 
alteration,  just  as  his*venerated  ancestor  had  transmitted  the 
precious  document.  The  Pentateuch  itself,  as  well  as  other 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  affords  evidence  of 
this  remarkable  carefulness  of  the  sacred  writers  to  dehver 
to  posterity  the  productions  of  those  inspired  men  who  had 
preceded  them,  uncorrupted  and  unaltered,  even  at  the  risk 
of  diminishing  that  uniformity  which  might  at  first  be  ex- 
pected to  reign  in  one  regularly  continued  work.  Still,  it  is 
evident  that  all  subsequent  sacred  writers,  who  take  notice 
of  the  creation  as  a  work  of  six.  days,  do  invariably  assume 
a  literal  and  not  an  allegorical  sense  of  the  word  '  day.' 
The  other  solution  of  the  difficulty  may  therefore  be  re- 
garded as  the  more  probable  of  the  two.  The  first  verse 
may,  and  most  probably  does,  express  the  original  creation 
of  the  mass  of  matter,  and  the  following  represent  its  con- 
dition and  subsequent  formation.  The  connexion  of  the  two 
22 


170  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  I. 

accounts  in  the  narrative  by  no  means  requires  a  chronolo- 
gical connexion  of  the  things  narrated.  The  language  does 
undoubtedly  allow  such  an  exposition,  and  the  geological 
facts  which  are  thought  to  support  it  are  merely  the  occasion 
which  has  led  to  its  adoption.  In  other  words,  science  has 
suggested  a  rule  of  interpretation,  and  conducted  the  inquirer 
to  a  deeper  investigation  of  the  meaning  of  scripture. 

If  the  version  of  Rashi,  given  in  the  third  note,  be  allowed 
to  be  correct,  it  will  harmonize  with  this  solution.  The  only 
point  of  difference  will  be  this  :  the  one  assumes,  while  the 
other  asserts,  a  previous  creation  of  the  mass  of  matter  of 
which  the  world  was  formed.  Both  agree  in  this,  that  the 
substance  existed  when  the  creation  or  formation  described 
in  the  chapter  took  place,  without  saying  any  thing  of  the 
time  during  which  it  had  existed  in  its  unformed  state. 

Since  the  preparation  of  these  notes,  Dr.  John  Pye  Smith 
has  published  his  work  "  On  the  Relation  between  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  Some  Parts  of  Geological  Science."  In  one 
part  of  his  book,  the  learned  author  proposes  to  give  such  a 
view  of  the  records  in  Genesis  as  shall  be  consistent  with 
facts  as  developed  and  ascertained  by  geology,  and  some 
other  departments  of  physical  science.  Whether  these  facts 
may  not  be  reasonably  explained  without  resorting  to  such 
expositions  of  scripture  as  he  maintains,  I  leave  to  the  de- 
cision of  those,  who,  by  uniting  a  competent  acquaintance 
with  physical  science  to  an  equally  competent  knowledge 
of  biblical  interpretation,  are  best  qualified  to  judge.  I  may 
be  allowed  to  say,  however,  that  the  language  of  scripture 
does  not  appear  to  me  to  require  the  representations  which 
this  author  has  founded  on  it.  The  reader's  attention  is  re- 
quested to  the  following  extract. 

"  The  Hebrew  word  ^'^'p')  is  commonly  translated  jirma- 
Twen?,  after  the  example  of  the  Septuagint,  (tfrs^swixa,)  but  many 
modern  critics  have  sought  to  mollify  the  unphilosophical 


CHAP.  I II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  171 

idea  of  a  solid  concave  shell  over  our  head,  by  using  the 
word  expanse.  No  doubt  they  felt  their  minds  acquiescing 
in  this  tei-m  as  expressing  very  well  the  diffused  fluid  which 
surrounds  the  earth ;  and  so  leaving  us  at  liberty  to  conceive 
of  its  increasing  tenuity,  till  it  is  lost  in  the  planetary  spaces. 
But  this  is  the  transferring  of  a  modern  idea  to  times  and 
persons  which  had  it  not.  The  word  strictly  signifies  a 
solid  substance,  extended  by  beating  out,  or  rolling,  or  any 
other  mode  of  working  upon  a  ductile  mass.*  The  old 
word,  firmament,  was  therefore  the  most  proper.  Ex- 
amining the  whole  subject  by  connecting  it  with  some  pas- 
sages which  have  been  quoted,  and  some  yet  to  be  mentioned, 
we  acquire  an  idea  of  the  meteorology  of  the  Hebrews. 
They  supposed  that,  at  a  moderate  distance  above  the 
flight  of  birds,  was  a  solid  concave  hemisphere,  a  kind  of 
dome,  transparent,  in  which  the  stars  were  fixed,  as  lamps ; 
and  containing  openings,  to  be  used  or  closed  as  was  ne- 
cessary. It  was  understood  as  supporting  a  kind  of  celes- 
tial ocean,  called  '  the  waters  above  the  firmament,'  and 
'  the  waters  above  the  heavens.'  This  was  the  grand  re- 
servoir containing  water  to  be  discharged  at  proper  times 
in  rain,  with  which  were  connected  '  water-courses,  for  the 
overflowing'  or  pouring  out.-\  The  idea  also  was  enter- 
tained of  masses  of  water  being  secured  in  strong  bags, 
which  the  clouds  were  supposed  to  be. 

Thus  we  read,  as  one  of  the  works  of  the  Deity,  that  he 
'tieth  up  water  in  his  dark  cloud,  and  the  cloud  beneath  them 
is  not  torn.'J  Here  also  were  the  '  treasures  of  snow,  and 
treasures  of  hail.'§  Lightning  also  was  conceived  of  as  pro- 
duced, and  then  laid  by  for  use,  in  the  same  region :  and  as 
consisting  of  some  kind  of  ignited  matter,  called  in  scripture 
'coals  of  fire;'    deriving  the  idea  from  burning  wood,  for 

*  See  Jer.  x.  9.     f  Job  xxxviii.  25.     t  lb.  xxvi.  8.     §  lb.  xxxviii.  22. 


172  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [PARf  f, 

tnineral  coal  they  knew  not.  Of  the  nature  and  cause  of 
thunder,  the  Israehtes  had  no  conception ;  and  therefore 
they  referred  it  immediately  to  the  supreme  cause,  and 
called  it  '  the  voice  of  God.'  This  idea  coincided  with  the 
accustomed  mode  of  representing  the  Deity,  by  the  analo* 
gies  of  the  human  form."  p.  222,  223. 

It  is  not  to  be  doubted,  that  the  Hebrews,  in  common 
with  other  nations  of  antiquity,  were  unacquainted  with  the 
true  theory  of  physical  nature.  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten, 
that,  in  common  with  all  nations,  they  employ  popular  lan- 
guage, and  speak  of  things  as  they  appear  rather  than  as 
they  are.  We  do  it  ourselves  in  some  degree,  and  doubtless 
they  did  it  in  a  much  greater.  This  simple  principle  does 
of  itself  suggest  the  proper  exposition  of  many  passages, 
and  the  poetic  imagery  of  the  sacred  writers  will  solve  any 
further  difficulty  which  others  may  be  supposed  to  in- 
volve. 

If  the  notion  which  Dr.  Smith  has  adopted  from  some 
older  writers  respecting  the  Hebrew  idea  of  "  a  solid  con- 
cave hemisphere,  &c."  had  any  good  foundation  in  the  texts 
alluded  to,  it  would  just  as  logically  follow,  that  the  earth 
was  thought  to  be  supported  on  "  pillars,"  from  such  texts 
as  Job  ix.  6,  xxvi.  11.  Ps.  Ixxv.  3.  The  idea  of  water- 
courses connected  with  the  supposed  celestial  ocean,  and  the 
strong  bags  identical  with  the  clouds,  is  about  as  well  sup- 
ported as  that  of  Hteral  "  windows  in  heaven,"  and  literal 
"  bags,"  with  which  the  Christian  is  commanded  to  provide 
himself.  See  Gen.  vii.  11,  Luke  xii.  33.  The  author  might 
as  well  have  inferred  that  the  Hebrew  supposed  these  rain- 
bags  to  be  "  tied  up"  with  twine  or  some  flexible  material. 
It  is  extraordinary  that  he  should  not  have  seen  and  felt  at 
Once  that  all  this  sort  of  language,  as  well  as  the  rest  which 
he  has  cited,  is  merely  poetic,  particularly  as  he  proceeds  to 
quote  a  passage  from  the  eighteenth  Psalm,  v.  7 — 15,  in 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  173" 

which,  as  he  observes  very  truly,  "  we  find  all  the  parts  of 
this  imagery  combined,  so  as  to  produce  the  most  magnifi- 
cent effect."  What  he  says  of  lightning  being  "  conceived 
of  as  produced,  and  then  laid  by  for  use"  in  some  region,  is 
utterly  unfounded.  Indeed,  a  rigid,  literal  interpretation  of 
certain  texts  on  which  the  general  view  a\*owed  by  him  is 
maintained,  is  inconsistent  with  other  representations.  That 
the  Hebrews  did  not  consider  the  heavenly  bodies  as  fix- 
tures, hanging  like  lamps  from  a  kind  of  dome,  is  plain  from 
Job  ix.  9,  xxxviii.  31,  Amos.  v.  8,  Judg.  v.  20,  and  other 
places ;  and  certainly  the  author  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  in 
saying  that  "  a  mist  went  up  from  the  earth,  and  watered 
the  whole  face  of  the  ground,"  (ii.  6,)  must  have  had  the 
idea  that  it  came  down  again  in  the  form  of  rain. 

Dr.  Smith  gives  his  view  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the 
creation,  p.  227  ss.  He  acknowledges  (p.  232,)  that  the 
Word  earth,  "  when  it  is  conjoined  with  '  the  heavens,'  de- 
notes the  entire  created  world,"  but  immediately  adds,  "  it 
is  evident  of  itself  that  the  practical  understanding  of  the 
phrase  would  be  in  conformity  with  the  ideas  of  the  people 
who  used  it,"  which  is  no  doubt  true.  Then,  as  if  to  Umit 
still  further  the  application  of  its  sense  in  the  first  chapter  in 
general,  and  in  the  recapitulation  in  the  first  verse  of  the 
second,  he  remarks  that  the  word  is  often  used  in  a  limited 
sense,  which  is  certainly  the  case  in  the  Hebrew,  and,  I 
presume,  in  all  other  languages.  He  then  states  his  opinion, 
that "  subsequently  to  the  first  verse"  of  the  first  chapter,  "  and 
throughout  the  whole  description  of  the  six  days,  the  word 
was  designed  to  express  the  part  of  our  world  ivhich  God 
was  adapting  for  the  dwelling  of  man  and  the  animals  con.' 
nected  with  him.*  I  must  profess  my  conviction  that  we 
are  not  obliged,  by  the  terms  made  use  of,  to  extend  the  nar- 

*  Here  and  elsewhere  the  italics  are  the  author's. 


174  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  i. 

rative  of  the  six  days  to  a  wider  application  than  this  ;  a 
description,  in  expressions  adapted  to  the  ideas  and  capacities 
of  mankind  in  the  earliest  ages,  of  a  series  of  operations,  by 
which  the  Being  of  omnipotent  wisdom  and  goodness  adjusted 
and  furnished  the  earth  generally,  but,  as  the  particular 
subject  under  consideration  here,  a  portion  of  its  surface 
for  most  glorious  purposes ;  in  which  a  newly  formed  crea- 
ture should  he  the  object  of  those  manifestations  of  the  au- 
thority and  grace  of  the  Most  High,  which  shall  to  eternity 
show  forth  his  perfections  above  all  other  methods  of  their 
display.  This  portion  of  the  earth  I  conceive  to  have  been 
a  large  part  of  Asia,  lying  betw^een  the  Caucassian  ridge,  the 
Caspian  Sea,  and  Tartary,  on  the  north,  the  Persian  and 
Indian  Seas  on  the  south,  and  the  high  mountain  ridges 
which  run,  at  considerable  distances,  on  the  eastern  and  the 
western  flank." 

I  am  compelled  to  say,  that  after  repeatedly  reading  this 
statement,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  reconcile  its  different  parts. 
When  the  writer  speaks  of  "  adjusting  and  furnishing  the 
earth  generally,"  one  would  naturally  suppose  that  he  in- 
tended to  denote  either  the  whole  or  a  large  proportion  of 
our  globe  ;  but  this  would  be  at  variance  with  the  words 
which  precede  and  those  immediately  following,  which  limit 
this  operation  to  "  a  part  of  our  world,  a  portion  of  the 
earth's  surface,"  which  portion  he  proceeds  to  define  with 
geographical  distinctness.  Neither  can  I  understand  him  to 
mean,  that  the  Mocaic  narrative  relates  in  general  to  the 
formation  of  the  whole  earth,  and  particularly  to  that  of 
this  portion.  He  supposes  the  previously  existing  "  con- 
dition of  superficial  ruin,  or  some  kind  of  general  dis- 
order, to  have  been  produced  by  the  subsidence  of  the  re- 
gion." Of  course,  then,  the  ruinous  disorder  would  be 
limited  to  the  portion  in  question,  and  the  remainder  of  the 
earth's  surface  would  need  no  such  adjustment  and  re-for- 
mation. 


CHAP.  I— II.  3.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  175 

Such  a  restricted  sense  of  the  term  '  earth,'  when  used  in 
connexion  with  '  heavens,'  is  quite  inadmissible ;  and  I  can- 
not but  think,  that  the  true  principle  whereon  to  explain  the 
narrative  in  this  chapter,  is  that  which  has  been  already- 
suggested,  namely,  that  the  formation  and  arrangement  of 
things  are  represented  to  have  been  as  they  would  have 
appeared  to  a  supposed  human  observer  stationed  on  the 
earth,  and  so  whenever  this  narrative  is  referred  to  in  other 
parts  of  scriptnre. 

Part  II.     Chap.  ii.  4— iv.  26. 

(13.)  The  former  half  of  this  fourth  verse  is  the  title  to 
what  follows.  Drechsler,  indeed,  p.  78,  supposes  it  to  refer 
to  the  preceding  account  as  well  as  to  the  subsequent ;  and 
doubtless,  in  writing  it,  the  author  had  in  view  the  narrative 
before  related.  But  it  is  a  proper  title  to  the  account  immedi- 
ately afterwards  given,  as  is  also  the  case  in  vi.  9,  and  xi.  27. 
Srinblvl,  which  properly  means  some  accounts  of  the  origin 
of,  and,  hence, generations,  descents,  or  genealogical  notices, is 
sometimes  used  in  the  sense  of  history.  See  xxxvii.  1.  The 
connexion  of  the  two  last  is  evident,  as,  in  all  probability,  the 
earliest  historical  accounts  were  nothing  more  than  genealo- 
gical lists,  with  brief  notices  of  prominent  individuals.  The 
clause  may  be  translated  thus :  'this  is  an  account  of  the  hea- 
vens and  the  earth  when  they  were  created.'  The  account 
begins  with  the  next  words,  which  are  intimately  connected 
with  the  fifth  verse,  as  follows  :  '  When  the  Lord  God  made 
the  earth  and  the  heavens,  then  any  shrub  of  the  field  was 
not  yet  in  the  ground,  and  any  grass  of  the  field  had  not 
yet  sprouted  forth ;  for  the  Lord  God  had  not  caused  it  to 
rain,  &c.'  This  describes  the  state  of  things  during  the 
time  that  the  process  of  creation  was  going  on,  and  the 
brevity  of  the  account  must  be  supplied  from  the  preceding 


176  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  U. 

narrative,  and  from  the  description  of  the  germination  and 
production  of  vegetables,  according  to  the  ordinary  course 
of  nature,  which  immediately  follows.  In  the  first  chapter, 
Moses  had  mentioned  the  formation  of  plants  on  the  third 
day.  Now,  proceeding  to  the  most  ancient  history  of  the 
earth  and  of  man,  he  explains  in  what  manner  plants  were 
afterwards  propagated,  and  introduces  his  account  by  re- 
marking, that  they  did  not  originally  exist  in  the  dry  land, 
(i.  9, 10.)  The  -j  commencing  the  sixth  verse  is  adversative, 
and  should  be  rendered  hut;  and  that  which  begins  the 
fifth,  serves  to  introduce  the  latter  part  of  the  sentence,  and 
ought  to  be  translated  then,  as  it  is  in  iii.  5,  ^hj?^5l  "  then  yom- 
eyes  shall  be  opened."  The  reader  cannot  fail  to  observe 
that  these  two  clauses  are  constructed  in  the  same  way, 
each  beginning  with  the  word  fiV^,  'in  the  day  :  in  ii.  4, 

'irii  b^i  \triiytfi's  pi?!  Q^ribssj  rt;Jn^  Mii).^  dV5,  'in  the 

■day  of  the  Lord  God's  making  the  earth  and  the  heavens, 
then  every,  &c.";  in  iii.  5,  &5.^5.^^  ^^f?^5^  ^^^^  ^^^^  ^'^^> 
"  in  the  day  of  your  eating  of  it,  then  your  eyes  shall  be 
opened."  In  the  former  passage,  the  rabbinical  division  of 
the  sentence  is,  of  course,  disregarded. — It  is  remarked  by 
Rashi  on  this  place,  that  Q'lp  in  scripture  always  means 
^ot  yet. 

(14.)  As  I  see  no  intimation  in  the  narrative  which  would 
lead  to  the  opinion  that  these  trees  were  allegorical,  I  adopt 
the  literal  view,  on  the  ground  that  this  is  always  to  be 
preferred,  unless  the  nature  of  the  subject  is  such  as  to  re- 
quire a  figurative  sense. 

Kennicott,  in  his  "  Dissertation  on  the  Tree  of  Life  in  Para- 
dise," (Oxford,  1747,)  has  endeavored  to  prove,  that  no  par- 
ticular tree  was  intended :  but  that  the  phrase  is  applicable 
to  fruit  trees  in  general,  from  their  natural  tendency  to 
preserve  life.    His  essay  is  more  iagenious  than  satisfactory. 


CHAP.  11. 4— IV.  26.]  NOTES   TO   GENESIS*  I7f 

and  the  translation  which  he  gives  to  ii.  9,  in  order  to  make' 
it  agree  with  his  view,  does  manifest  violence  to  the  He- 
brew. "  And  out  of  the  ground  made  the  Lord  God  to 
grow  every  tree  that  was  pleasant  to  the  sight,  and  that  was 
good  for  food,  and  a  tree  of  life ;  and  in  the  midst  of  the 
garden  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil."  This 
is  not  only  against  the  Masoretic  accentuation,  but  also 
against  the  necessary  connexion  of  1  with  If^^  after  "15(1. 
He  attempts  to  vindicate  this  transfer  of  "I  from  its  natural 
place  in  the  series  of  the  words,  by  appealing  to  Gen.  xxii.  4, 
and  xxviii.  6  ;  but  in  both  of  these  cases  it  precedes  a  verb 
with  which  it  is  intimately  connected,  and  may  be  rendered 
that.  No  less  forced  is  his  translation,  if  it  may  be  called  a 
translation  of  iii.  22  :  "  Behold,  the  man  hath  behaved,  as  if 
he  were  equal  to  one  of  us,  as  to  the  test  of  good  and  evil ; 
and  now,  lest  he  put  forth  his  hand,  and  take  again  of  the 
trees  of  life,  and  eat,  and  so  live  on  all  his  days." 

(15.)  It  is  difficult  to  identify  the  first  two  rivers  men 
tioned  by  Moses.  Some  have  imagined  that  he  means  the' 
Nile  and  the  Ganges  or  Indus,  which,  with  the  other  two, 
the  Tigris  and  Euphrates,  constitute  the  four  great  rivers 
best  known  to  the  ancients.  But,  on  this  hypothesis,  it  is 
impossible  to  make  the  account  consistent  either  with  geo- 
graphical truth,  or  with  that  accurate  knowledge  which  the 
Pentateuch  exhibits.  Indeed,  it  seems  impossible  to  explain 
how  any  Hebrew  writer  could  have  represented  the  Nile  as 
approximating  in  its  source  to  the  head  of  either  of  the 
others.  So  gross  an  ignorance  is  not  to  be  assumed.. 
Neither  is  it  reasonable  to  believe,  that  Moses  intended  to 
represent  the  garden  of  Eden  as  a  territory  of  vast  extent, 
comprehending  the  immense  region  which  a  line  bordering 
on  the  sources  of  these  rivers  must  necessarily  include. 
Probably  the  Pison  is  the  Phasis  or  Phash,  which  falls  into 
23 


178  NOTES   TO   GENESIS.  [part  It 

the  Black  Sea.  The  name  is  said  to  be  derived  from  the 
fulness  and  impetuosity  of  its  stream,  and  consequently  (as 
might  be  supposed,)  was  not  limited  in  its  application  to  this 
river.  Havilah,  which  this  stream  is  said  to  wind  about,  is 
probably  Cholchis,  famed  among  the  ancients  for  its  gold. 
It  is  uncertain  whether  the  substance  afterwards  mentioned 
was  a  precious  gum  used  as  frankincense,  or  pearls.  The 
Gihon,  (so  called  from  rT^ti,  to  break  forth,  and  therefore 
applied  to  various  streams,  and  even  to  a  water-course  at 
Jerusalem,  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  30,)  is  perhaps  the  Aras  or 
Araxes,  which,  rising  near  the  source  of  the  Phasis,  pursues 
its  south-easterly  course  to  the  Caspian.  This  river  is  said 
to  wind  round  the  country  of  Cush,  rendered  in  the  com- 
mon version  Ethiopia.  Some  identify  this  region  with  that 
inhabited  by  the  Cosssei  near  Media.  Others  consider  it  as  a 
comprehensive  word  applied  to  southern  countries,  whether 
in  Asia  or  Africa.  Traces  of  it  may  still  be  discovered  in 
the  name  Chusistan,  a  province  in  Persia.  The  Hiddekel 
or  Tigris,  so  called  from  the  rapidity  of  its  current,  and  the 
Phrath  or  Euphrates,  are  both  well  known.  If  this  view  of 
the  four  rivers  be  correct,  the  garden  of  Eden  must  have 
been  situated  in  Armenia. 

From  the  tenth  verse,  it  is  evident  that  the  four  rivers  were 
originally  connected.  The  division  of  the  original  stream 
may  well  be  attributed  to  some  of  the  various  changes  to 
which  the  surface  of  the  globe  has  at  various  times  been 
subjected.  Still  the  question  arises,  does  the  language  de- 
scribe what  existed  in  the  time  of  Moses  ?  or  does  it  repre- 
sent the  antediluvian  condition?  No  good  reason  can  be 
assigned,  why  the  geographical  position  of  Eden  should  be 
marked  out  by  topographical  phenomena  existing  before  the 
flood,  by  a  writer  posterior  to  that  event.  The  probability, 
then,  is  in  favor  of  the  opinion,  that  Moses  describes  the  lo- 
cality by  marks  which  admitted  of  application  in  liis  day. 


CHAP.  II.  4— IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  179 

If  it  be  urged  as  a  difficulty  in  his  account,  that  the  deluge 
must  have  obliterated  all  traces  of  the  four  rivers  into  which 
the  paradisaical  stream  was  divided,  it  may  be  replied,  that 
there  is  no  reason  for  admitting  such  a  destruction  of  the 
surface  of  the  globe  by  the  flood  as  the  difficulty  assumes. 
Besides,  the  text  does  not  oblige  us  to  maintain  that  the  di- 
vision into  four  principal  streams  must  have  existed  before 
the  deluge.  The  representing  of  one  stream  running  through 
the  garden  at  the  time  when  our  first  parents  inhabited  it, 
may  have  suggested  to  the  sacred  writer  the  formation  of 
four  rivers  from  that  spot,  although  they  may  not  have  ex- 
isted until  after  the  flood.  That  the  two  facts  are  stated  in 
immediate  connexion  in  the  narrative,  is  no  proof  of  contem- 
poraneous existence. 

''From  thence  it  was  parted."  The  ordinary  sense  of 
Cp  is  certainly  that  of  place,  if  indeed  this  be  not  its  invari- 
able meaning,  as  I  think  is  most  probable.  Hengstenberg 
denies  that  it  is  ever  an  adverb  of  time.  See  the  note  on 
Hos.  ii.  19,  in  his  Christologie  des  Alfen  Testaments,  Vol.  Ill, 
p.  103,  Keith's  Translation,  p.  76.  This  text  is  cited  by 
Professor  Bush  as  proving  an  *  undoubted  indication  of  time.' 
But  the  particle  d^'?2  evidently  refers  to  place,  namely, 
"  the  wilderness"  just  spoken  of  in  the  preceding  verse : 
"  from  thence,"  from  that  place,  "  I  will  give  her,"  the  spiri- 
tually returning  people,  "  vineyards."  Clearer  still  to  the 
same  purpose  is  the  only  other  passage  cited  by  him,  Isa. 
Ixv.  20.  dp!?  does  not  here  mean  "  from  that  time ;"  it  in- 
dicates place,  the  spiritual  Jerusalem  mentioned  in  the  two 
preceding  verses.  Gesenius  does  indeed  represent  fiffl  as  an 
adverb  of  time,  referring  to  this  very  passage  in  Hosea,  and 
to  Ps.  xvi,  5,  cxxxii,  17,  and  Judg.  v.  1 1.  But  the  references 
are  unsatisfactory.  The  first  from  the  Psalms  and  that 
from  Judges  rather  indicate  locality,  as  they  plainly  imply 
circumstance,  condition  :  "  there  were  they  in  great  fear"  ; 


180  NOTES   TO   GENESIS.  [part  ii. 

"there  shall  they  rehearse."  The  other  undoubtedly  implies 
locality  :  "  there  will  I  make  the  horn  of  David  to  sprout"  ; 
there,  namely,  in  "  Zion,"  the  "  rest,"  the  "  habitation"  spoken 
of  in  V.  13, 14.  Isa.  xlviii.  16,  ^Db^  d^'  t^^V^  t\^_)2  seems 
to  support  this  asserted  indication  of  time,  but  it  is  not 
clearly  in  favor  of  it.  fitp  in  this  place  rather  appears  to 
correspond  with  our  English  usage  of  '  there,'  in  such 
phrases  as :  '  there  is  a  man,  there  are  some  people.'  Thus, 
the  words  might  be  rendered :  '  from  the  time  of  its  being, 
there  (was)  I,'  that  is, '  I  was.'  See  Robertson's  Thesaurus 
and  CoccEius's  Lexicon  on  the  word,  both  of  whom  quote 
from  Maimonides  UbXO  b^l^S^DS  Dt25  tH^'O,  where  ttH  is  thus 
used :  *'  the  first  fundamental  principle  is  to  believe  that  there 
is  a  perfect  being."  Comp.  Ecc.  iii.  17,  where  our  translators 
have  perhaps  unnecessarily  introduced  "  there  is"  in  italics, 
intimating  that  the  original, contains  no  corresponding  term: 
certainly,  they  have,  if  the  idea  is  conveyed  by  Q'©.  In  the 
passage  which  has  suggested  these  remarks,  the  connexion 
with  the  preceding  words  necessarily  requires  the  sense  of 
place :  "  A  river  went  out  of  Eden,"  that  is,  took  its  rise 
there,  "  to  water  the  garden,  and /row  thence  it  was  parted." 

(16.)  Rosenmiiller  and  some  other  critics  regard  the  ac- 
count of  the  woman's  formation  from  a  part  of  the  man's 
substance,  (whether  this  were  a  portion  of  his  side  or  one 
of  his  ribs,)  as  an  allegory,  intended  to  represent  the  inti- 
mate union  and  affection  of  the  marriage  relation.  But  it  is 
more  consistent  with  the  generally  historical  character  of 
the  contents  of  the  book,  to  consider  the  account  as  that  of 
a  real  fact.  The  attempt  to  give  the  transaction  a  ludicrous 
coloring  is  but  a  poor  substitution  of  humor  for  logic.  If 
the  woman  were  to  be  created,  it  is  no  more  an  impeach- 
ment of  the  creator's  wisdom  to  suppose  him  to  have  used 
a  portion  of  the  man's  body  for  the  purpose,  than  it  would 


CHAP.  II.  4— IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  181 

be  to  suppose  him  to  have  employed  any  other  materials. 
The  being  who  was  able  to  produce  the  result,  was  able  to 
do  it  without  either  pain  or  even  consciousness,  were  this 
necessary,  in  the  man.  There  is  nothing  in  the  narrative 
which  requires  a  resort  to  parable.  Com  p.  1  Cor.  xi.  8  : 
"  for  the  man  is  not  of  the  woman,  but  the  woman  of  the 
man"  ;  from  which  it  is  probable  that  St.  Paul  alludes  to 
this  account ;  and  if  so,  he  evidently  regards  it  as  a  his- 
torical fact. 

C17.)  This  is  undoubtedly  the  language  of  the  inspired 
author,  as  is  intimated  in  Matt.  xix.  4,  5,  where  it  is  intro- 
duced as  a  divine  declaration.  The  expression  of  Adam  is 
contained  in  the  preceding  verse. 

The  hypothesis  has  been  advanced,  that  the  second  chap- 
ter, with  the  exception  of  the  first  three  verses,  is  a  separate 
and  independent  account  of  the  creation..  But  it  is  destitute 
of  any  solid  basis.  The  designation  of  the  Deity  by  the 
expression  "  Lord  God,"  while  the  term  "  God"  was  before 
employed,  has  often  been  appealed  to  in  proof  of  the  inde- 
pendent origin  of  these  portions  of  Genesis.  But  this  argu- 
ment can  hardly  be  thought  of  much  weight,  as  these  vari- 
ous appellations  may  be  designedly  chosen  in  reference  to 
their  genuine  meaning,  or  the  use  of  them  may  be  inciden- 
tal, or  the  same  writer  may  habitually  use  different  words 
at  different  times.  In  some  places  the  terms  appear  to  be 
used  indiscriminately.  The  subject  has  already  been  treated 
of  in  the  Introduction.  Rosenmiiller,  who  once  attached 
great  importance  to  the  argument  drawn  from  the  use  of 
these  different  terms,  afterwards  abandoned  it  as  untenable. 
Neither  is  the  apparent  repetition  in  part  of  the  narrative  of 
the  creation  any  stronger.  For,  either  it  is  a  retrospective 
reference  to  what  was  before  related,  and  is  intended  to  in- 
troduce something  new,  as  in  v.  18  ss. ;  or  it  is  essential  to 


182  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [piBT  U. 

a  clear  view  of  the  statement  which  the  author  designed  to 
make,  as  in  v.  7.  The  remainder  of  the  portion  consists 
altogether  of  additional  matter. 

(18.)  The  notion  of  Rosenmiiller,  that  the  narrative  des- 
cribes the  first  influence  of  reason  as  an  active  principle, 
which  had  before  lain  dormant  as  it  were  in  the  human  con- 
stitution, and  now  shows  itself  as  the  source  of  misery, 
simultaneously  with  animal  propensity,  is  an  extravagant 
hypothesis,  alike  revolting  in  its  character  and  unsupported 
by  the  representation  made  in  the  chapter.  It  assumes, 
moreover,  that  when  God  made  man  in  his  own  image,  and 
gave  him  "  dominion  over  the  other  works  of  his  hands," 
(Ps.  viii.  6.  Gen.  i.  26 — 28,)  he  placed  the  ruler  of  this  lower 
woi'ld  in  the  happy  condition  of  early  infancy,  ("  primae  in- 
fantisB  foelix  simplicitas.")  Schiller  also  represents  man  in 
his  original  state  as  acting  merely  under  the  influence  of 
instinct.  *  But  he  breaks  away  from  the  leading  strings  of 
nature's  cradling  season,  and  then  by  the  exercise  of  reason 
is  to  seek  again  that  state  of  innocence  which  he  had  lost.' 
Thus  our  first  parent's  disobedience  to  the  divine  law  is 
nothing  else  than  '  a  falling  away  from  his  instinct,  the  first 
daring  effort  of  his  reason,  the  very  commencement  of  his 
moral  being' :  ein  Abfall  von  seinem  Instinkte — erstes  Wag- 
estiick  seiner  Vernunft,  erster  Anfang  seines  moralischen 
Daseyn.  The  philosopher  admits  that  thus  moral  evil  was 
brought  into  the  creation,  but  maintains  that  it  was  only 
with  the  view  of  making  moral  good  possible  ;  and  there- 
fore he  regards  the  fact '  as  the  happiest  and  greatest  event 
in  the  history  of  man'  !  Dicser  Abfall  des  Mcnchcn  vom 
Instinkte,  der  das  moralische  Uebel  zwar  in  die  Schopfung 
brachte,  aber  nur  um  das  moralische  Gute  darin  moglich  zu 
machen,  ist  ohne  Widerspruch  die  gliicklichste  und  grosste 
Begebenheit  in  der  Menschengeschichte.     See  his  treatise, 


CHAP.  11. 4— IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  183 

entitled,  Etwas  iiber  die  erste  Menschengesellschaft  nach 
dem  Leitfaden  der  Mosaischen  Urkunde,  section  first,  which 
bears  the  title  :  '  Transition  of  man  to  freedom  and  humani- 
ty' !  Uebergang  des  Menschen  zur  Freyheit  und  Humanitat. 
The  treatise  may  be  found  in  the  16th  volume  of  Schiller's 
Collected  Works,  Stuttgart  and  Tubingen,  1819.  A  believer 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  history,  or  even  in  the  truth  of  the 
facts  related,  would  find  it  impossible  to  reconcile  such 
views  with  his  faith.  Can  it  be  thought  that  the  benevolent 
author  of  our  being  would  have  subjected  the  first  human 
pair  to  a  trial  of  virtue,  the  result  of  which  has  had  an  in- 
fluence on  the  condition  of  their  posterity,  when  the  power 
of  reasoning  on  the  case  was  just  beginning  to  develop 
itself?  As  such  a  supposition  is  incompatible  with  general 
sentiment  and  feeling,  so  it  is  also  inconsistent  with  the 
whole  representation  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  This  describes 
the  fall  of  our  progenitors  from  a  state  of  innocence  and 
happiness  to  one  of  guilt  and  misery,  in  consequence  of 
their  voluntary  transgression  of  God's  known  law,  estab- 
lished as  a  method  of  probation  and  a  test  of  obedience. 

(19.)  That  "©ni  signifies  a  serpent  is  almost  universally 
admitted.  The  use  of  the  word,  the  authority  of  the  old 
versions,  and  eastern  tradition,  incontrovertibly  determine 
this  meaning. — Of  the  various  views  which  have  been  taken 
of  this  chapter,  it  will  be  sufficient  for  my  purpose  to  state 
the  most  important ;  leaving  the  candid  reader  to  form  his 
own  judgment  respecting  the  degree  of  probability  to  which 
they  are  respectively  entitled.  Each  is  correct  in  presum- 
ing the  fact  of  the  fall  to  be  the  prominent  point  of  the 
narrative.* 

*  The  reader  who  is  desirous  to  see  what  curious  and  learned 
critics  have  thought,   reasoned,   and    conjectured  on  this  subject,   is 


184  NOTES   TO    GENESIS.  [part  li. 

The  first  view  to  be  mentioned  is  that  which  maintains 
the  action  of  a  real  serpent,  and  denies  any  other  agent  to 
be  intended  as  a  tempter.  This  opinion  has  had  learned 
advocates.  It  is  maintained  by  the  Jewish  commentator, 
Abarbanel,  supported  by  Simeon  de  Muis  in  the  Critici 
Sacri,  Tom.  I.  p.  148,  and  sanctioned  by  Dathe,  in  his  note 
(c,)  on  iii.  1,  and  Herder  in  his  second  letter  on  the  Study 
of  Theology,  Briefe,  das  Studium  dcr  Theologie  betreffend, 
in  his  Collected  Works,  published  at  Stuttgart  and  Tubingen, 
1829,  Vol.  XIII.  p.  26.  These  writers  suppose  the  tempta- 
tion to  have  consisted  in  the  serpent's  repeatedly  using  the 
fruit  in  Eve's  presence,  without  visible  injury,  perhaps  with 
apparently  increased  powers,  and  thus  exciting  in  her  the 
inclination  to  follow  his  example.  The  influence  of  this 
example,  and  the  thoughts  that  consequently  arose  in  her 
mind,  are  represented,  agreeably  to  the  genius  of  oriental 
and  figurative  language,  under  the  image  of  a  conversation. 
In  opposition  to  this  hypothesis,  it  has  been  urged,  that  so 
poetic  a  representation  of  the  simple  act  of  the  serpent's 
eating  the  fruit  and  thereby  giving  rise  to  thoughts  and  in- 
clinations in  the  woman's  mind,  is  inconsistent  with  the 
narrative  style  of  the  whole  work,  in  which  poetic  ma- 
chinery can  have  little  or  no  place.  And  great  weight 
ought  to  be  attached  to  the  fact,  that  another  agent  in  the 
temptation  is  evidently  contemplated  by  the  earliest  Jewish 
authority,  and  in  the  New  Testament.  This  will  be  more 
particularly  exhibited  hereafter. 

The  second  view  regards  the  devil  as  the  principal 
agent,  who,  in  accomplishing  his  scheme,  employed  the  ser- 
pent as  his  instrument.  Thus  the  latter  appears  to  reason 
and  speak ;  the  woman  converses  with  him,  and  is  led  by  the 

referred  to  the  dissertations  of  Frischmuth,  Paschius,  and  De  Hase, 

published    in    the    Thesaurus    Theologico-Philologicus,    Fol.   Amst. 
Pars  prima,  pp.  55 — 95. 


CHAP.  II.  4 — IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  185 

artful  representations  which  the  devil  enables  him  to  make, 
to  break  the  divine  law.  The  sentence  which  afterwards 
follows,  is  to  be  explained  in  reference  to  both  the  agents. 
This  is  the  view  which  has  been  most  generally  adopted  by 
divines,  and  is  supposed  to  meet  all  the  requisitions  of  tho 
case,  and  to  accord  with  the  representations  elsewhere  mad<3 
in  scriptitre  and  early  Jewish  writings.  It  is  defended  by 
Hengstenberg  in  his  Christology,  Vol.  I.  p.  26  ss. 

There  are  difficulties  in  this  view  of  the  transaction, 
which  appear  to  some  irreconcileable  with  truth  as  deduced 
from  other  parts  of  scripture  and  supported  by  reason^ 
They  find  it  difficult  to  perceive  how  the  supreme  being 
could  allow  such  a  series  of  circumstances  to  go  into  opera- 
tion, in  order  to  try  the  virtue  of  our  first  parents,  consis- 
tently with  the  views  of  divine  providenc'e  and  goodness  a3 
generally  exhibited  in  the  Bible.  Let  it  be  observed,  that 
the  difficulty  in  contemplation  does  not  lie  in  the  fact  of  their 
being  permitted  to  be  tempted.  Sound  reasons  are  given 
for  this.  So  far  as  we  know,  the  trial  of  virtue  may  be 
essential  to  the  highest  excellence  of  every  created  intelli- 
gence, and  may  be  allowed  in  order  to  produce  the  greatest 
amount  of  moral  character.  Neither  does  the  difficulty  lie 
in  the  particular  test  selected.  The  establishment  of  a 
chai'acter  of  implicit  obedience  to  the  will  of  God  simply  as 
such,  was  intended  to  be  the  result ;  and  the  prohibition  of  the 
fruit  of  a  particular  tree  was  as  well  fitted  for  this  purpose 
as  any  prohibition  or  demand  whatever.  But,  on  the  hypo- 
thesis" under  consideration,  the  great  enehiy  of  God  and 
goodness,  filled  with  jealousy  at  the  happiness  of  the  first 
pair,  contrives  a  plan  to  ruin  this  happiness,  to  bring  sin  and 
misery  into  the  world,  and  thus  to  mar  the  harmony  and 
beauty  of  the  almighty  maker's  workmanship  ;  and  in  car- 
rying this  plan  into  effect,  he  works  a  series  of  miracles,' 
24 


186  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  II. 

speaking  by  means  of  the  serpent's  organs,  thus  abusing  one 
of  God's  good  creatures,*  by  making  him  the  instrument  in 
the  destruction  of  another,  and  that  other  no  less  a  person- 
age than  the  lord  of  this  lower  world,  the  father  of  the 
whole  human  family.  This  is  the  point,  the  miraculous 
character  of  the  action,  which  is  thought  to  be  an  insupera- 
ble objection.  It  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  the  facts 
stated  on  this  hypothesis  do  imply  miracles,  unless,  indeed, 
the  old  fable  of  inferior  animals  having  been  endowed  with 
the  faculties  of  reason  and  speech  be  renewed  in  order  to 
meet  the  difficulty.!  How  many  others  this  would  involve, 
it  were  a  waste  of  time  to  point  out.  Whether  any  of  the 
spiritual  agents  in  the  universe,  however  exalted,  possesses 
natural  powers  adequate  to  such  miraculous  result,  may 
admit  of  doubt.  On  the  question  connected  with  this  re- 
mark, men  of  profound  thought  and  acute  powers  of  reason- 
ing have  differed  ;J  so  that  we  cannot  assume  the  devil's 

*  As  all  of  God's  creatures  were  good  in  their  respective  kinds, 
(see  Gen.  i.  31,)  the  intimation  of  Horsley,  (Biblical  Criticism,  Vol.  I. 
p.  17,)  that  "  the  tempter  assumed  perhaps  by  necessity  the  form  of 
the  serpent,  being  j^erinitted  to  assume  no  better  than  that  of  a  mean 
reptile,"  is  not  admissible.  The  contemptuous  designation  of  the  ani- 
mal is  in  striking  contrast  with  the  notion  of  those  who  figure  to  them- 
selves some  glorious  creature  of  remarkable  beauty  and  splendor,  who 
is  afterwards  compelled  to  suffer  degradation  of  nature  and  form,  as  a 
consequence  of  his  having  been  forcibly  made  the  instrument  of  the  evil 
spirit's  wicked  machinations ! 

f  See  the  passages  from  Plato  and  the  Sybilline  Oracles  quoted  by 
BocHART  in  his  Phaleg,  Lib.  I.  cap.  i.  xv.  p.  3,  50,  Edit.  Tert.  Lug. 
Bat.  1692.  Abundance  of  Talmudic  and  Rabbinical  nonsense  on  this 
subject  may  be  found  in  Eisenmengkr's  Entdectes  Judentlmm,  Theil 
I.  cap.  viii.  p.  419  ss. ;  although  the  author  seems  to  give  the  most  ridi- 
culous construction  of  the  Jewish  representations,  some  of  which  are 
perhaps  figurative. 

X  On  this  point  see  Hugh  Farmer's  Dissertation  on  Miracles,  on  the 
one  side;  and,  on  the  other,   the   Bishop  of  Clogher's  (Clayton's) 


CHAP.  II.  4— IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS. 


187 


inability  to  employ  the  serpent,  as  the  view  of  the  transac- 
tion supposes  him  to  have  done.  But  w^hatever  opinions 
may  be  held  by  different  persons  respecting  the  nature  of 
miracles  and  the  power  necessary  to  work  them,  none  who 
believe  in  the  being  and  attributes  of  God  can  deny  that  all 
such  power  must  be  under  his  control,  and  cannot  be  used 
except  by  his  permission.  In  the  language  of  Dr.  Jortin, 
"  God  will  not  permit  evil  spirits  to  delude  wise  and  good 
men  to  their  hurt." 

The  questions,  then,  which  every  inquirer  after  truth,  who 
determines  to  make  up  his  mind  deliberately  and  impartially 
on  this  important  topic,  must  settle,  are  these :  '  Does  this 
account  of  the  temptation  and  fall  of  our  first  parents  ne- 
cessarily imply  that  the  devil  possesses  power  to  work 
miracles  ?  and  if  he  does,  that  the  Deity  would  allow  him 
to  exert  it  for  such  a  purpose,  and  under  the  circumstances 
of  the  case  ?'*  If  an  affirmative  answer  to  the  former  of 
these  questions  should  even  be  allowed,  the  latter,  it  is  said, 
can  admit  of  no  other  than  a  negative  reply,  consistently 
with  the  general  views  of  scripture  and  the  fair  results  of 
unbiassed  reasoning.  Under  the  inflcience  of  these  and 
other  considerations,  the  truth  of  the  view  in  contemplation 
is  questioned  by  some,  who  are  conscientious  and  serious  be- 
lievers in  revelation. 

The  third  view  to  be  stated  supposes  the  devil  to  be  the 
only  agent  in  effecting  the  temptation,  and  that  whatever  is 

Chronology  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  Vindicated,  p.  252  ss. ;  Houslet's 
Sermon  on  Mark  vii.  37;  Jortin's  Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History, 
Lond.  1805,  Vol.  II.  p.  1  ss. ;  and  Le  Clerc  on  Exod.  vii.  11. 

*  That  any  one  should  suppose  the  Deity  himself  to  have  wrought 
the  miracle,  is  too  preposterous  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  Neither 
is  it  of  any  consequence  to  examine  the  question,  in  what  light  Eve 
herself  would  have  regarded  the  transaction,  and  whether  her  know- 
ledge of  the  natural  powers  of  the  brute  creation  were  sufficient  to 
enable  her  to  ascertain  the  truth. 


188  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  II. 

said  respecting  the  serpent  is  figurative.  It  is  worthy  of 
notice,  that  the  sacred  books  of  the  ancient  Persians  repre- 
sent the  evil  principle  as  tempting  the  parents  of  the  human 
race,*  and  as  coming  to  earth  in  the  form  of  a  serpent. f 
And  it  is  yet  more  important,  that  the  Jewish  tradition  and 
the  New  Testament  speak  of  the  devil  as  the  tempter,  and 
represent  him  under  the  same  figure.  In  the  book  of  Wis- 
dom, ii.  24,  we  find  the  expression,  "through  envy  of  the 
devil  came  death  into  the  world  ;"  and  in  Bereshith  Rabba, 
(an  old  and  extensive  commentary,)  the  book  Sohar,  and 
other  Jewish  authorities,  Sammael,  by  whom  is  meant  the 
devil,  is  represented  as  the  serpent  by  whom  Eve  was  de- 
ceived. See  the  passages  in  Schoettgen's  Horae  Hebraicae, 
on  John  viii.  44,  and  Rev.  xii.  7,  9  ;  also,  in  Eisenmenger's 
Entdecktes  Judenthura,  Theil  I.  cap.  xviii.  p.  831  ss.  Thus 
in  Rev.  xii.  9.  xx.  2,  the  devil  is  called  "  the  great  dragon" 
and  "  that  old  serpent"  ;  (the  ^!D1?2lpn  Wtlli  of  the  Jewish 
writers  ;)  and  also,  without  an  epithet,  "  the  dragon"  and 
"the  serpent."  See  xii.  13 — 17.  And  it  cannot  reasonably 
be  doubted,  say  the  advocates  of  this  view,  that  in  the  same 
figurative  sense  the  word  is  used  without  an  epithet  by  St. 
Paul :  "  as  the  serpent  beguiled  Eve,"  2  Cor.  xi.  3.  In  John 
viii.  44,  our  Lord  calls  the  devil  "  a  manslayer  from  the  be- 
ginning," which,  in  its  most  natural  meaning,  refers  to  him 
as  the  original  tempter  by  whom  sin  and  death  were  brought 
into  the  world.  The  agency  of  the  devil  in  the  temptation 
of  the  first  human  pair,  seems  therefore  to  be  evidently  the 
doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  and  of  the  ancient  Jewish 
church.     And  it  is  equally  evident,  that  the  tempter  is  him- 

*  See   Kleuker's  Zendavesta  in  August  Hahn's  Lehrbuch  des 
Christlichen  Glaubens,  Leip.  1828,  p.  347  ss. 

f  Zend,  in  Hengstenberg,  ubi  sup.  p.  29,  30,  and  Keith's  Trans- 
lation, p.  29. 


CHAP.  11. 4 IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  189 

self  designated  by  the  term  used  in  the  original  record 
under  consideration. 

If  now,  say  they  who  defend  this  third  view,  the  inspired 
author  of  this  record  should  have  intended  to  denote  no 
other  agent,  the  difficulties  which  otherwise  embarrass  the 
narrative  are  removed.  By  the  permission,  yet  under  the 
control  of  God,  the  devil  tempts  our  first  parents  to  trans- 
gress the  law  which  had  been  imposed  as  the  test  of  obedi- 
ence. He  holds  communication  with  the  woman,  and  in- 
duces her  to  suspect  the  truth  of  the  divine  threatening,  and 
to  believe  that  participation  in  the  fruit  would  be  attended 
with  a  vast  increase  of  angelic  and  perhaps  of  divine  know- 
ledge. These  real  facts  of  the  case  are  represented  under 
the  veil  of  allegory.  The  serpent  is  selected  to  represent 
the  devil  on  account  of  his  proverbial  cunning,  and  because 
of  the  very  general  antipathy  with  which  this  class  of  ani^ 
mals  is  regarded  by  mankind.  That  part  of  the  curse  which 
is  generally  supposed  to  have  been  denounced  against  the 
reptile  itself,  is  in  fact  meant  for  the  devil.  The  language 
is  such  as  would  have  been  employed  had  a  real  serpent 
been  intended  ;  but  this  is  consistent  with  the  parabolical 
character  of  the  representation,  and  even  necessary  in  order 
to  sustain  it.  That  such  language  presents  no  real  objection 
to  the  view  which  they  endeavor  to  defend,  they  maintain 
must  be  allowed  by  all  who  put  a  figurative  construction  on 
the  latter  part  of  the  curse  :  "  it  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and 
thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel."  But  this  is  done  by  the  whole 
body  of  orthodox  commentators  ;  and,  indeed,  with  the  best 
reason,  as  a  literal  interpretation  would  be  miserably  frigid, 
utterly  unworthy  of  the  solemn  occasion,  and  highly  incon- 
sistent with  the  infinite  dignity  of  the  speaker,  and  the  awful 
condition  of  the  parties  addressed.  The  expression :  "  on 
thy  belly  shalt  thou  go,  and  dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the  days 
of  thy  life,"  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  change  of  form  or 


190  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  II. 

outward  appearance,  and  a  literal  use  of  dust  for  food. 
The  former  must  not  be  assumed,  for  a  large  proportion  of 
reflecting  readers  will  regard  it  as  improbable  ;*  and  the 
latter  is  obviously  untrue,  as  serpents  cannot  be  said  to  feed 
,on  dust,  any  more  than  other  animals  who  take  their  food 
from  the  ground.  The  language  denotes  great  degradation, 
utter  subjection,  the  most  abject  prostration  in  the  presence 
of  a  triumphant  opposing  power.  See  Ps.  Ixxii.  9.  cii.  10. 
Isa.  xlix.  23,  where  the  phrase,  "  to  ea^"  or  "  lick  the  dust," 
can  have  no  other  meaning.  The  verbs  bDJSJ  and  'nnb  are 
both  used  in  this  connexion.  See  the  second  reference  to 
the  Psalms,  and  compare  Micah  vii.  17. 

The  objections  to  this  view  and  the  arguments  to  prove 
that  a  real  serpent  must  be  intended,  may  be  identified.  It 
is  necessary  to  examine  them,  and  as  they  are  urged  by 
Hengstenberg,  I  shall  state  them  in  his  language. 

"  It  is  beyond  all  doubt,  that  a  real  serpent  was  engaged 
in  the  temptation,  and  consequently  the  opinion  of  those 
must  be  rejected,  who  regard  the  serpent  as  merely  a  sym- 
bolical designation  of  the  evil  spirit.     This  opinion  would 

♦  The  notion  of  several  Jewish  and  Christian  expositors,  (see  Frisch- 
muth's  Dissertation  before  referred  to,  cap.  I.  §  22,)  that  the  creature 
was  originally  provided  with  legs,  which  on  this  occasion  were  cut  off, 
;(T^!2p5l  Tj  T^tl  lD''ri!H^,  Rashi ;)  and  that  of  some  other  commenta- 
tors, that  its  primitive  form  was  splendid  and  imposing,  similar  to  that 
in  which  a  seraph  would  display  himself,  are  alike  unfounded  in  the 
narrative  or  meaning  of  the  word,  and,  I  think,  equally  unreasonable. 
An  old  Jewish  gloss  quoted  by  Maimonides,  in  his  More  Nevochhn, 
Part  11.  chap.  30,  fol.  43,  (y)2)  Berl.  edition,  1795,  and  in  Buxtorf's 
Translation,  p.  280,  281,  may  be  regarded  as  the  climax  of  such  fan- 
cies. Here  it  is  said,  that  the  serpent  was  an  animal  as  large  as  a 
camel,  that  it  might  be  ridden  on,  that  Samniael,  which  is  another  term 
for  Satan,  rode  on  it  when  Eve  was  deceived,  and  that  the  term  em- 
ployed in  the  text  designates  both  agents.  See  the  Proteuangelium 
Paradisiacum  of  Christopher  Helvicus,  p.  15,  in  the  Critici  Sacri, 
Tom.  I.  Pars  II.,  at  the  end  of  the  volume ;  and  compare  Holden's 
Dissertation  on  the  Fall,  chap.  II.  sect.  6,  p.  118. 


CHAP.  n.  4— IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  191 

make  it  necessary,  in  order  to  be  consistent,  that  we  should 
adopt  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation  throughout  the 
whole  narrative.  For  in  a  connected  paragraph  like  this, 
uniformity  of  interpretation  must  prevail,  and  we  are  not  at 
liberty,  in  the  same  historical  relation,  to  adopt  at  one  time 
the  allegorical  or  symbolical,  and  at  another  the  simple  and 
literal  method.  Against  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  the 
whole,  there  are  many  objections,  as  the  connexion  with 
what  follows,  where  the  history  of  the  same  human  pair 
which  are  brought  into  view  is  carried  forward, — the  ac- 
curate geographical  description  of  paradise, — the  fact,  that 
the  condition  of  mankind  threatened  in  this  narrative  as  a 
punishment,  actually  exists, — the  absence  of  every  indica- 
tion from  which  it  might  be  inferred  that  the  author  designed 
to  write  an  allegory  and  not  a  history, — the  passages  in  the 
New  Testament,  where  the  account  of  the  fall  is  referred 
to  as  a  real  history,  2  Cor.  xi.  3,  1  Tim.  ii.  13,  14,  Rom.  v. 
12, — the  embarrassment,  uncertainty,  and  capriciousness  of 
the  allegorical  interpreters,  when  they  attempt  to  exhibit  the 
truth  intended  to  be  conveyed,  which,  if  the  author  had 
designed  his  composition  for  an  allegory,  must  have  been  so 
obvious  as  to  be  easily  discovered. 

The  presence  of  a  real  serpent  is  proved,  moreover,  not 
only  by  the  remark,  chap.  iii.  1,  "  now  the  serpent  was  more 
subtile  than  any  beast  of  the  field,"  but  by  the  punishment 
denounced,  which  must  necessarily  refer,  in  the  first  instance 
to  the  serpent."    Christology,  p.  26  s. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  express  any  decided  opinion  in 
favor  of  the  third  view  now  under  consideration  ;  but  it 
must  be  obvious  that  the  remarks  which  have  already  been 
made,  supply  an  answer  to  several  of  those  objections  of 
Hengstenberg.  Some  of  the  others  are  irrelative  to  the 
view  itself,  and  can  only  apply  to  the  neological,  mythic  re- 
presentation of  the  facts  contained  in  the  first  portions  of 


192  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [pakt  11. 

Genesis.  The  reply  to  the  remainder  will  immediately 
occur  to  every  reflecting  mind.  The  author  assumes  the 
very  principle  in  question,  namely,  that  consistency  requires 
the  whole  narrative  and  representation  to  be  regarded  as  an 
allegory,  or  else  denies  any  part  of  it  to  be  such.  It  is 
assumed  also  by  Horslev,  in  his  Biblical  Criticism,  Vol.  I. 
p.  9,  10,  and  17.  But  this  is  not  to  be  conceded.  Many 
objections,  and  unanswerable,  there  truly  are  to  an  allegorical 
interpretation  of  the  whole,  and  of  the  history  which  fol- 
lows. But  there  is  no  necessity  for  this.  The  statements 
made  both  before  and  after  the  narrative  in  question  are  so 
stamped  with  the  very  image  of  historical  fact,  that  it  would 
be  impossible  to  view  them  in  any  other  light  without  a 
manifest  perversion  of  their  meaning.  And  it  is  maintained 
by  those  who  defend  this  hypothesis,  that  the  account  of  the 
fall  is  also  a  real  history,  as  it  is  represented  to  be  in  the 
New  Testament.  This  is  the  question  for  consideration : 
'  Is  this  real  history  of  the  fall  of  our  first  parents  into  sin, 
through  the  instigation  of  the  devil,  whereby  they  were  led 
to  disobey  God,  related  in  language  partly  allegorical  or 
wholly  literal  V  It  must  be  obvious  to  every  candid  mind, 
that  the  reply  to  this  question  has  no  bearing  whatever  on 
the  fact  of  the  fall  or  the  doctrines  deducible  from  it. 
Whether  it  be  answered  in  the  affirmative  or  negative,  these 
will  continue  the  same.  There  may  be  "  embarrassment, 
uncertainty,  and  Capriciousness  in  the  attempts  of  some  to 
exhibit  the  truth  intended  to  be  conveyed,"  but  they  are 
riot  essential  to  a  partly  allegorical  interpretation. 

A  resort  to  allegory  might  be  defended  on  the  ground  of 
necessity ;  and  consequently  where  the  necessity  does  not 
exist,  the  narrative  is  to  be  explained  literally.  If  the  ne- 
cessity be  allowed  to  exist  in  some  parts  of  a  narrative  and 
not  in  others,  "  uniformity  of  interpretation"  cannot  be  de- 
manded.    The  intermixture  of  the  literal  and  the  figurative 


CHAP.  II.  4— IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  193 

in  immediate  connexion,  and  without  any  intimation  except 
what  the  nature  of  the  case  suggests,  is  very  usual  in  scrip- 
ture. See  Matt.  viii.  22,  "  let  the  dead  bury  their  dead  ;" 
1  Thess.  iv.  16,  1  Pet.  iv.  5,  6,  and  particularly  the  literal 
clause  in  the  sixteenth  verse  of  the  80th  Psalm,  "  they 
perish  at  the  rebuke  of  thy  countenance,"  in  connexion  with 
the  immediately  preceding  beautiful  allegory  of  the  "  vine 
brought  out  of  Egypt."  Does  any  interpreter  hesitate  to 
explain  the  address  of  Jotham  to  the  men  of  Shechem  in 
the  ninth  chapter  of  Judges,  partly  as  an  allegory  or  para- 
ble, (v.  8 — 15,)  and  partly  according  to  the  literal  sense  of 
the  words?  (v.  16 — 20.)  Every  reader  feels  that  necessity 
demands  this,  as  the  literal  sense  involves  an  absurdity. 
And  on  the  same  principle,  the  view  under  consideration 
gives  an  allegorical  sense  to  what  is  ascribed  to  the  serpent, 
because  a  literal  one  is  thought  to  involve  a  difficulty  in 
reference  to  the  moral  character  of  God,  and  an  inconsis- 
tency with  scripture  and  reason.  "  If,"  says  Mr.  Holden,* 
"it  could  be  satisfactorily  established  that  Satan,  without 
using  any  animal  as  an  organ,  deceived  Eve,  and  that  in 
consequence  '  the  serpent'  is  a  figurative  and  symbolical 
name  given  to  him  by  Moses,  it  would  not  overturn  the 
literal  interpretation.  The  account  may  be  equally  literal 
and  authentic,  notwithstanding  a  few  metaphorical  expres- 
sions or  symbolical  terms.  If  the  devil  be  called  lUnDil, 
therefore,  it  will  be  no  reason  for  turning  the  whole  into 
allegory.  The  only  difference  which  this  circumstance  will 
make  in  our  interpretation  is,  that,  in  the  one  case  the  part 
ascribed  to  this  "ffin!}!!,  and  the  commination  of  it,  will 
belong  both  to  the  devil  and  the  material  serpent,  and,  in 
the  other,  to  the  devil  alone  ;  but  the  history  will  be  equally 
true  and  literal.     The  younger  Vitringa,  who  espouses  the 

*  Dissertation  on  the  Fall  of  Man,  p.  401,  402. 
25 


194  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  11. 

notion  that  Satan  used  no  brute  animal,  contends  at  some 
length,  and  very  ably,  that  it  does  not  militate  against  the 
literal  and  historical  sense.  See  Diss,  de  Serpente  Vetera- 
tore,  cap.  iv.  §  3,  et  seq." 

Perhaps  it  may  be  thought  by  some,  that  this  third  view 
does  not  entirely  remove  the  difficulty,  and  that,  on  the  sup- 
position of  the   presence   and   agency  of  the   devil  in  the 
temptation,  a  miracle  must  be  implied.     But  this  is  by  no 
means  a  necessary  consequence.     It  is   certainly  the  doc- 
trine of  the  New  Testament,  that  the  devil  does  now  tempt 
men  to  sin ;  but  no  believer  in  this  scriptural  doctrine  re- 
gards such  agency  as  miraculous.     It  is  according  to  the 
ordinary  course  of  nature,  as  now  existing,  both  as  regards 
the  tempter  and  the  tempted.     And  such  temptation  may  be 
all  that  the  narrative  under  consideration  states.     The  lan- 
guage ascribed  to  the  devil  need  not  have   been  uttered  in 
articulate  sounds.     To  give  such  a  meaning  of  the  phrase- 
ology :  "  and  the  serpent  said  unto  the  woman,"  &;c.  &c., 
it  is  enough  to  maintain,  that  tJie  tempter  suggested  the  thought 
which   the   words    convey.     In   the    communication   of  the 
thought,  the  essence  of  his  temptation  lies,  and  not  in  the 
fact  of  its  having  been  embodied  in  language.     To  illustrate 
this  remark  by  specific  references  must  be  unnecessary,  as 
the  scripture  abounds  with  such  language,  which  cannot 
possibly  escape  the  notice  of  an  attentive  reader ;  and  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  a  continual  exemplification  of  the 
principle,  as  the  phrase  "  and  God  said,"  which  occurs  so 
frequently,  is  generally  allowed  to  denote  the  determination 
of  his  will,  and  not  to  signify  its  oral  declaration.     The 
tempting  sentiment  did  not  originate  with  the  woman ;  it 
was  not  the  natural  working  of  her  own  mind  ;  it  was  a 
suggestion  made  by  the  great  enemy  of  God  and  goodness. 
But  it  will  perhaps  be  said :  can  the  woman  be  imagined 
to  address  herself  to  the  tempter,  or  in  any  way  to  com- 


CHAP.  u.  4 — IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  195 

municate  her  thoughts  to  him,  unless  he  were  visibly  pre- 
sent ?  In  reply,  it  may  be  asked,  wherein  lies  the  difficulty 
of  allowing  that  she  might,  his  real  presence  being  of  course 
understood  ?  Whenever  a  communication  was  made  by  a 
spiritual  being,  whether  the  infinitely  holy  one  himself  or 
some  one  of  his  angels,  and  replied  to  by  the  party  to  whom 
it  was  made,  is  it  to  be  taken  for  granted,  that  a  visible 
form  had  been  assumed,  whereby  to  make  such  com- 
munication ? — that  the  practicability  of  conveying  senti- 
ments, and  of  replying  to  them,  depended  on  the  visibility 
of  the  principal  agent  ?  The  advocates  of  the  third 
view  might  reasonably  apprehend,  that  but  few  would  main- 
tain such  a  position  as  this.  Does  any  one  imagine  that 
a  visible  form  appeared  to  Samuel,  when  he  mistook  the 
voice  that  called  him  for  that  of  Eli?  1  Sam.  iii.  4 — 10. 
When  the  law  was  given  on  Mount  Sinai,  the  Hebrews 
'•  heard  the  voice  of  the  words,  but  saw  no  similitude ;  only 
they  heard  a  voice,  they  saw  no  manner  of  similitude." 
Deut.  iv.  12,  15.  And  when  the  Lord  Jesus  arrested  the 
progress  of  Saul,  and  called  to  him  in  an  audible  voice,  to 
which  the  persecutor  replied  orally  and  received  oral  direc- 
tions, it  is  expressly  said,  that  "  the  men  which  journeyed 
with  him  stood  speechless,  hearing  a  voice  hut  seeing  no  one, 
iiriSiva  8s  6su^ouvTsg."  Acts  ix.  7.  And  if  visibility  be  not 
necessary  in  regard  to  one  spiritual  being,  why,  it  might  be 
asked,  is  its  necessity  assumed  in  regard  to  another  1  The 
moral  character  of  either  cannot  be  supposed  to  affect  the 
analogy  of  the  cases.  "  We  know  not,  and  perhaps  canno 
comprehend  the  mode  of  communication  between  spiritual 
essences."     Holden  on  the  Fall,  p.  172. 

On  the  other  hand  it  may  be  replied  :  '  although  the  visibil- 
ity of  the  spiritual  agent  be  not  contended  for,  the  real  mi- 
raculous character  of  the  agency  is,  in  the  latter  instances, 
undeniable.     When  the  word  of  the  Lord  is  revealed  to 


196  NOTES    TO   GENESIS.  [part  11. 

Abraham  or  any  other  prophet ;  when  God  tries  the  father 
of  the  faithful,  and,  at  the  end  of  the  trial,  calls  to  him  out 
of  heaven  ;  there  is,  as  was  doubtless  the  case  at  our  Lord's 
baptism  and  transfiguration,  and  on  the  occasion  mentioned 
in  John  xii.  28,  and  in  that  of  Saul's  conversion,  an  audible 
voice,  a  real  miraculous  agency.'  All  this  is  true ;  but 
whether  the  cases  are  sufficiently  analogous  to  that  of  Eve's 
temptation,  to  afford  ground  for  an  argument  from,  the  one 
to  the  other,  may  admit  of  some  doubt.  If  the  temptation 
were  addressed  to  her  by  the  devil  in  a  visible  appearance, 
and  conveyed  by  oral  declaration,  we  should  not  even  then 
too  hastily  infer  that  a  communication  so  made,  was,  at  the 
period  in  contemplation,  contrary  to  the  course  of  things 
then  subsisting,  and,  therefore,  miraculous  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  would  be  to  us  in  the  present  day.  It  may  be,  that 
angelic  beings  held  frequent  intercourse  with  the  first  human 
pair.  And  if  this  were  so,  the  seducer  may  have  presented 
himself  to  Eve,  as  readily  as  any  of  his  brethren  who  had 
retained  their  original  condition,  and  the  interchange  of 
thought  between  him  and  the  woman  may  have  been 
made  in  the  same  way,  whether  oral  or  otherwise,  as  was 
usual  on  other  occasions  when  angels  communicated  with 
them. 

The  difficulties  of  the  subject,  and  the  very  imperfect 
data  within  our  reach,  must  suggest  to  every  serious  in- 
quirer the  duty  of  taking  impartial  views,  and  of  avoiding 
hasty  decisions  and  crude  speculations,  founded  in  fancy, 
rather  than  careful  investigation  of  inspired  truth. 

(20.)  To  open  the  eyes  is  a  phrase  denoting  increase  of 
knowledge.  It  is  thus  used  of  Hagar,  when  the  well  is 
pointed  out  to  her,  (Gen.  xxi.  19,)  and  of  the  disciples  who 
were  made  to  recognize  their  master  at  Emmaus,  (Luke 
xxiv.  31.) 


CHAP.  II.  4 IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  197 

(21.)  "The  seed"  or  posterity  of  the  woman  (v.  15.)  de- 
notes mankind,  comprehending  of  course  the  Saviour  him- 
self, the  greatest  of  all  her  offspring.  The  miraculous 
character  of  his  birth  cannot  be  proved  to  be  intimated  by 
the  phrase,  for  one  entirely  analogous  is  applied  to  man  in 
general.  See  Job  xiv.  1.  "  The  seed"  or  progeny  of  the 
serpent,  are  the  children  of  the  devil ;  that  is,  agreeably  to 
the  scriptural  use  of  the  word  child  or  son,  those  who  are 
like  him  in  temper  and  disposition,  and  whose  interests  are 
identified  with  his.  It  may  comprehend,  therefore,  all  in- 
corrigibly wicked  men  and  evil  angels.  The  right  of  obdu- 
rate sinners  of  mankind  to  be  regarded  as  descendants  of 
the  woman,  connected  with  her  and  claiming  the  promise, 
is  virtually  denied,  and  such  enemies  of  God  are  placed  in 
the  ranks  to  which  they  properly  belong :  "  they  are  of 
their  father  the  devil,"  John  viii.  44.  Here  then  are  two 
distinct  classes ;  the  partizans  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness 
headed  by  Satan,  and  those  of  Eve's  posterity  who  "  are 
on  the  Lord's  side,"  together  with  the  great  Redeemer  him- 
self, with  whom  they  are  united  in  character  and  interests. 

In  determining  the  general  meaning  of  the  prediction  in 
this  verse,  it  is  not  necessary  to  settle  the  original  meaning 
of  the  word  Cl^tl).  It  may  be,  according  to  Gesenius  a.nd 
Umbreit,  the  same  as  that  of  C]!S5'ffi,  '  to  pant  after,'  and  hence 
may  mean, '  to  lie  in  wait  for' ;  or  it  may  come  from  the 
Arabic  \L^,  and  mean,  as  Dathe  says,  '  to  look  out  for  with 
raised  head,'  (comp.  the  Greek  d'Tfoxa^aSoxia,  earnest  ex- 
pectation;) or  else  from  \Ll,  'to  scent  out.'  Onkelos  seems 
to  have  followed  this  derivation  in  the  latter  clause,  which 
he  renders  thus :  i^S^D^  H""?  iL^p-^HiH  Jn^^l.  '  and  thou  shalt 
watch  for  him  at  the  end.'  So  also  the  Septuagint,  dvrog  tfs 
Tr]^r)(j'£i  xscpocKriv,  >c,  rfu  TTi^rjo'sig  aurS  "T-Tt'^vav,  and  the  Vulgate :  et 
tu  insidiaberis  calcaneo  ejus.     Store,  in  his  Opuscula  Acade- 


198  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  II. 

mica,  Vol.  II.  p.  416  ss.,  defends  another  meaning  of  the 
Arabic  word,  viz.  '  to  come  close  to,'  and  deduces  this  as 
the  sense  of  the  text :  "  it  (the  progeny  of  the  woman) 
shall  come  close  to  thy  head,  that  is,  shall  attack  it  with 
hostile  intent  and  not  in  vain,  but  thou  shalt  come  close  to 
his  heels,  shalt  come  under  them,  shalt  be  trampled  under 
foot."  See  p.  419,  s.  But  this  exposition  takes  the  same 
word  in  the  two  clauses  in  opposite  senses ;  the  former  con- 
veying the  idea  of  successful  hostility,  the  latter  of  complete 
prostration  under  the  power  of  the  foe.  In  Chaldee,  the 
word  means,  '  to  wear  away,  to  grind  to  dust,  to  scrape,  to 
file,'  like  Ti'B'W  and  C|3lp.  Whatever  may  be  the  primitive 
meaning  of  the  root,  the  idea  here  conveyed  in  both  clauses 
is  that  of  hostility  ;  and  this  sense  agrees  with  the  only  two 
other  places  in  which  the  word  occurs  in  scripture  :  Job  ix. 
17,  "  he  breaketh  me  with  a  tempest,"  he  assaileth  me  with 
hostile  fury;  and  Ps.  cxxxix.  11,  where  it  is  used  meta- 
phorically, *  darkness  shall  assail  me,'  shall  overwhelm, 
crush  me  down,  as  it  were.  The  degree  of  injury  to  be 
sustained  by  the  respective  parties  is  obviously  implied  in 
the  terms  '  head'  and  '  heel.'  As  the  head  is  the  seat  of  life, 
the  assailing  and  crushing  of  it  express  complete  destruc- 
tion of  vital  energy,  entire  prostration  of  the  adversary. 
The  antithetic  phrase  conveys,  of  course,  the  idea  of  injury 
comparatively  trifling. 

The  promise  in  this  verse  does  undoubtedly  imply  the 
doctrine  of  a  Saviour,  who  should  deliver  the  posterity  of 
Eve  from  the  effects  of  the  fall,  and  destroy  the  power  of 
the  tempter ;  so  that  it  may  well  be  regarded  as  the  first 
annunciation  of  the  Gospel,  involving  its  great  and  funda- 
mental truth.  But  it  is  conveyed  in  figurative  language, 
and,  like  many  very  early  predictions,  is  obscure.  How 
far  our  first  parents  understood  its  import,  we  are  unable  to 
say.  Where  the  scriptures  have  withheld  information  in  such 
points,  it  were  folly  to  affect  knowledge. 


CHAP.  II.  4— IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  199 

(22.)  That  death  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word, 
meaning  the  separation  of  the  soul  and  body,  is  here  in- 
tended, is  too  plain  to  need  proof.  Whether  any  more 
comprehensive  sense  is  implied  on  the  supposition  of  subse- 
quent rejection  of  mercy  offered  through  a  Saviour,  it  is 
not  consistent  with  the  plan  of  these  notes  to  examine. 
Doubtless  such  a  sense  is  a  scriptural  truth,  whether  it  be 
taught  in  this  history  or  gathered  exclusively  from  other 
places.  As  the  death  which  is  here  plainly  threatened,  is 
the  natural  result  of  that  mortal  state  which  was  the  imme- 
diate effect  of  the  transgression,  the  language  of  the  origi- 
nal sanction,  "  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shall 
surely  die,"  admits  of  an  easy  interpretation,  as  the  cause  of 
dissolution  then  commenced  its  operations,  and  at  that  very 
time  man  became  mortal. 

(23.)  Eve,  in  Hebrew  n^H,  equivalent  to  T])Tl,  Ufe.  The 
name  was  probably  imposed  some  time  after,  when  the 
descendants  of  the  first  pair  had  become  considerably 
numerous. 

(24.)  The  language  of  the  text,  "  the  Lord  God  made 
coats  of  skins,"  is  to  be  explained  on  the  principle,  the  use 
of  which  is  so  common  in  scripture,  whereby  an  action  is 
ascribed  to  an  indirect  and  remote  cause.  The  meaning  is, 
he  instructed  our  first  parents  to  make  themselves  garments. 
Berger,  indeed,  in  his  Praktische  Einleitung,  Vol.  I.  p.  63, 
considers  this  and  other  representations  contained  in  the 
first  chapters  of  Genesis,  as  illustrative  of  the  author's  gross 
and  imperfect  conceptions  of  the  divine  nature.  But  it  is 
not  true,  that  the  narrative  represents  God  as  making  man 
"  cloaths  with  his  own  hand,"  to  use  this  writer's  indecorous 
language.  It  might  as  well  be  said,  that  Jacob  himself 
made  the  coat  of  Joseph.    Comp.  xxxvii.  3. 


200  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  11. 

(25.)  ViTRiNGA,*  and  some  other  critics,  suppose  the  lan- 
guage in  the  former  part  of  v.  22  to  be  ironical,  implying, 
that  the  tempter's  promise  (v.  5,)  had  failed  to  result  in  any 
thing  but  misery.  But  the  knowing  of  good  and  evil,  that 
is,  the  practical  and  experimental  acquaintance  with  evil  in 
contradistinction  to  good,  was  an  effect  of  the  fall,  and  the 
comparison  here  made  need  not  be  carried  out  beyond  the 
single  point  of  an  increase  of  knowledge.  Before,  the  man 
was  happily  ignorant  of  evil  and  innocent  of  its  effects  ; 
now  he  is  practically  acquainted  with  it  in  contradistinction 
to  good.  The  supposition  of  irony  is  hardly  consistent  with 
the  solemnity  of  the  occasion.  The  phrase,  "  like  one  of 
us,"  is  explained  by  some  in  reference  to  the  plurality  of 
persons  in  the  Deity.  It  seems  reasonable  to  give  it  the 
same  sense  as  the  corresponding  phrase  in  v.  5,  "ye  shall  be 
Q'^Jlbj^S-"  The  Septuagint  renders  this,  'like  gods,'  ^s  ^soi, 
and  this  is  followed  by  the  Vulgate,  "  sicut  dii."  The  Chal- 
dee  translates  'l'^^")^"!^  '  like  great  ones,'  and  the  Arabic 
'k^^%Juo\^,  '  like  the  angels' ;  the  Syriac  alone  uses  the  singu- 
lar number,  |  q^  y— i1 ,  '  like  God.'  Our  English  translation, 
"like  gods,"  follows  the  Septuagint,  and  means,  most  pro- 
bably, like  divine  beings,  in  other  words,  like  angels.  Thus 
the  word  C'll^^  is  used  in  Ps.  viii.  6,  where  it  is  rendered 
by  the  Sept.  ayyeXoi,  a  version  which  is  adopted  by  St.  Paul 
in  Heb.  ii.  7,  and  undoubtedly  gives  the  sense  of  the  origi- 
nal, although  it  is  not  a  literal  translation.  The  view  sug- 
gested by  Rashi,  and  presented  in  the  note  on  i.  26,  illus- 
trates the  phrase,  '  like  one  of  us.' 

The  account  of  the  Cherubim,  glorious  celestial  beings, 
who  were  appainted  to  guard  the  entrance  into  paradise,  is 

*  See  his  Dissertation,  de  arbore  prudentiee  in  Paradiso,  in  his  Ob- 
servationes  Sacras,  Lib.  iv.  cap.  xii.  §  iv.  p.  1047. 


CHAfi  11.  4 — IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  201 

regarded  by  Michaelis  and  Dathe  as  a  poetic  description  of 
thunder  and  lightning.  Comp.  Ps.  xviii.  9 — 15.  But  this  is 
at  Variance  with  the  context,  which  is  historical ;  and  it  is 
not  required  by  any  difficulties  in  the  case,  as  such  a  pro- 
cedure could  not  but  strike  a  salutary  awe  into  the  minds  of 
the  offenders,  fill  them  with  concern  for  having  transgressed 
God's  law,  and  thus  deepen  their  penitential  emotions.  The 
"  flaming  sword  turning  itself  every  way"  denotes  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  method  employed,  and  the  utter  impracticabil- 
ity of  counteracting  the  divine  intentions.  It  is  probable 
that  the  expedient  for  preventing  access  to  the  tree  of  life, 
continued  in  operation  but  a  short  time. 

(26.)  As  the  scriptures  uniformly  derive  the  existence  of 
all  mankind  from  Adam  and  Eve,*  it  is  evident  that  their 
descendants  must  have  been  considerably  numerous  at  the 
time  of  this  transaction.  The  imperfect  notices  of  Cain's 
apprehension  after  the  divine  judgments  had  been  denounced 
against  him,  and  of  his  subsequent  conduct,  (v.  14 — 16,)  are 
sufficient  to  establish  this  point ;  and  it  is  quite  consistent 
with  the  remarkable  brevity  which  characterizes  the  early 
part  of  Genesis.  It  was  not  the  author's  intention  to  give 
an  entire  history  of  the  family  of  our  first  parents,  but  to 
select  those  incidents  to  which  more  than  ordinary  interest 
was  attached,  or  which  were  most  immediately  adapted  to 
advance  the  true  knowledge  and  worship  of  God.  Cain 
may  have  been  Adam's  first-born  ;  but  this  is  uncertain. 
The  language  in  v.  1,  merely  states  that  his  mother  gave 
him  a  name  expressive  of  acquisition,  but  whether  he  was 
the  first  treasure  of  this   sort  given  to   his  parents,  or  one 

*  The  variety  of  species  existing  among  the  human  race  may  not, 
indeed,  have  yet  been  satisfactorily  explained  ;  but  certainly,  it  affords 
no  proof  of  the  opinion  of  distinct  races  derived  from  different  ori- 
ginals. See  Wiseman's  third  and  fourth  Lectures,  which  are  devoted 
to  this  subject. 

26 


202  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  U. 

subsequently  added  to  the  social  circle,  we  are  not  informed. 
The  words  (iin^~i1i^  mean  '  with/  '  by,'  or  "  from  the  Lord,'^ 
and  denote  Eve's  pious  recognition  of  the  agency  of  divine 
providence  in  giving  her  this  son.  Thus,  they  are  well  ex- 
plained by  the  Septuagint,  Sia  tS  &s^,  and  this  is  followed  by 
the  Vulgate,  per  Deum.  tli^  may  be  elliptical  for  flSSsI^  (comp. 
xlix.  25.  2  Kings  xxiii.  35,)  or  it  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of 
'with.'  See  Gesenius,  II.  2.  The  notion  that  Eve  believed 
this  son  to  be  the, promised  Messiah,  and  avows  his  divinity 
by  calling  him  Jehovah,  is  utterl}^  unfounded,  and  assumes 
a  measure  of  religious  knowledge,  which  there  is  no  proof 
that  she  possessed.  As  the  name  of  Abel  means  vanity,  if 
it  were  imposed  immediately  on  his  birth,  it  was  probably 
selected  on  account  of  some  unknown  contemporaneous 
circumstances  illustrative  of  the  vain  and  uncertain  charac-" 
ter  of  human  expectations.  It  is  unnecessary  to  say  how 
well  the  designation  corresponds  with  his  melancholy  death. 

(27.)  This  is  the  sole  ground  on  which  the  scripture  rests 
the  procedure  of  God  in  reference  to  the  offerings  of  these 
two  brothers.  It  was  "  faith"  that  made  Abel's  acceptable, 
(Heb.  xi.  4,)  that  principle  of  holy  obedience,  which,  under 
all  dispensations,  (Heb.  iv.  2,  3,)  was  the  condition  of  favor. 
The  faith  eulogized  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Hebrews,  is  a 
confident  expectation  of  what  God  hath  promised,  and  a  firm 
conviction  of  the  truth  of  whatever  he  hath  revealed  ;  and  it 
leads  to  an  uniform  acquiescence  in  whatever  he  requires. 
This  faith  was  Abel's,  whether  it  acted  on  revealed  views  of 
an  atoning  Saviour  to  come,  or  on  any  other  declarations  com- 
municated from  heaven.  And  it  would  be  equally  acceptable 
in  either  case,  plainly  because  in  either  case  it  would  have  ori- 
ginated in  the  same  inward  character.  It  has  been  confidently 
said,  that  the  faith  of  Abel  prompted  him  to  the  choice  of  an 
animal  sacrifice,  in  obedience  to  a  divine  institution,  and  that 


CHAP.  II.  4— IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  203 

he  thereby  showed  that  his  hopes  were  founded  on  an 
atonement  to  be  made  at  some  future  time  by  the  promised 
Messiah.  Certainly  it  were  rash  to  assert  the  contrary. 
But  where  is  the  proof  that  Abel  was  so  fully  acquainted 
with  the  divine  plan  for  the  redemption  of  mankind?  Doubt- 
less he  believed  in  the  promise  made  to  his  parents,  but  we 
have  no  evidence  to  satisfy  us  that  he  knew  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  to  be  accomplished  ;  and  where  the  oracles  of 
God  are  silent,  it  is  wise  in  human  expositors  not  to  affect 
knowledge.  The  notion  that  his  animal  sacrifice  was  made 
in  addition  to  such  an  offering  as  Cain  presented,  was  ad- 
vanced by  Kennicott ;  but  it  is  unsupported,  either  by  the 
original  language  of  the  text,  (v.  4,)  or  by  that  in  Heb.  xi.  4, 
to  which  appeal  has  been  made.  The  word  nilS^  offering, 
on  which  Kennicott  lays  great  stress,  is  not  confined,  as  he 
assumes  it  to  be,  to  "  an  oblation  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground, 
or  an  unbloody,  in  opposition  to  a  bloody  sacrifice,"  but  is 
often  used  for  gift  in  general,  and,  in  the  latter  part  of  v.  4, 
is  certainly  exegetical  of  the  firstlings  and  fat  of  the  flock. 
Undoubtedly  it  would  not  be  maintained,  that  Abel's  "  offer- 
ing" which  God  respected,  did  not  comprehend  the  animal 
victim  ;  as  this,  according  to  the  hypothesis,  was  the  very 
thing  that  gave  it  value,  and  showed  the  offerer's  faith. 
That  irXsma,  in  Heb.  xii.  4,  is  used  of  character  rather  than 
number,  is  in  itself  altogether  probable  ;  and  it  is  strange, 
that  Dr.  Kennicott  should  say,  "  that  ■rXgiwv  has  not  the  sense 
of  praestantior  through  the  whole  New  Testament."  See 
his  Dissertation  on  the  oblations  of  Cain  and  Abel,  p.  197,  198. 
Matt.  xii.  41,  42,  are  clear  instances  of  this  meaning.  It 
must  be  said,  that  several  of  Kennicott's  criticisms  are  far- 
fetched and  unfounded. — See  Magee  on  the  Atonement, 
No.  LXII. 

As  Abel's  faith  made  his  offering  acceptable,  the  want  of 
it,  proved  by  the  want  of  obedience,  caused  the  rejection  of 


204  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  11. 

Cain's.  The  character  of  this  man  is  intimated  with  suffi- 
cient distinctness  by  the  expostulation  of  God  in  v.  7,  "  if 
thou  doest  well,  shalt  thou  not  be  accepted  ?  (or  perhaps, 
more  in  accordance  with  the  Hebrew :  '  shall  there  not  be 
elevation'  ?  in  reference  to  what  is  said  in  v.  5,  at  the  end  :) 
"  and  if  thou  doest  not  well,  &c."  It  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  such  an  address  would  be  made  to  a  righteous  person. 
If  the  language  of  the  narrative  were  consistent  with  any 
doubt  on  this  point,  that  of  the  New  Testament  would  en- 
tirely remove  it.  We  are  told  by  St.  John,  {1  Ep.  iii.  12,) 
that  "  Cain  was  of  the  wicked  one,"  and  that  "  he  slew  his 
brother,  because  his  own  works  were  evil  and  his  brother's 
righteous."  See  also  Jude  11.  As  the  scriptural  account  of 
these  two  persons  sufficiently  explains  the  grounds  of  the 
divine  procedure  in  reference  to  each,  sound  philosophy,  as 
well  as  common  sense,  prohibits  the  indulgence  of  useless 
speculation. 

It  seems  most  probable,  from  the  connexion  of  the  verse 
which  mentions  the  occupation  of  the  two  brothers  with 
those  which  specify  the  sort  of  offerings  which  they  made, 
(2 — 4,)  that  the  latter  was  the  natural  result  of  the  former. 
But  this  opinion  by  no  means  implies  that  of  the  human 
origin  of  sacrifices.  Whether  they  be  regarded  as  cere- 
monies indicative  of  covenant  relation,  or  as  gifts  recog- 
nizing divine  authority  and  right,*  this  view  seems  wholly 
at  variance  with  their  nature,  antiquity,  and  typical  charac- 
ter, as  announced  in  the  New  Testament.  The  manner  in 
which  the  offerings  of  Cain  and  Abel  are  introduced,  (v.  3,) 
seems  to  intimate  that  such  a  method  of  propitiating  the  di- 
vine favor  was  then  commonly  practised ;  and  that,  in  so 
very  early  a  period  of  human  existence,  it  should  have  re- 

•  In  reference  «to  these  two  views  of  the  origin  of  sacrifice,  see  Jen- 
ning's  Jewish  Antiquities,  and  tlie  authorities  referred  to,  in  Book  I. 
Chap.  V.  Vol.  I.  p.  305  ss.,  Lend.  edit.  1808. 


CHAP.  II.  4 — IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  205 

suited  from  observation  of  the  influence  of  similar  acts  on 
men,  or  reasoning  from  the  action  to  the  wished-for  end,  is 
in  the  highest  degree  improbable.  As  the  old  dispensation 
was  emblematic  of  the  new,  it  seems  altogether  analogous 
to  the  general  representations  of  scripture,  to  consider  sac- 
rifice as  divinely  instituted,  in  order  to  typify  the  offering  of 
Christ.  The  Mosaic  sacrifices  were  undoubtedly  of  this 
nature ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  give  a  rational  account  of 
sacrifice,  as  almost  coeval  with  the  origin  and  co-extensive 
with  the  existence  of  man  before  the  promulgation  of  Chris- 
tianity, without  allowing  its  divine  original.  The  opinion, 
therefore,  which  has  so  often  been  maintained,  that  the 
beasts,  whose  skins  contributed  to  form  the  clothing  of  our 
fallen  parents,  had  been  slain  and  offered  in  sacrifice  by  di' 
vine  direction,  seems  to  intimate  the  true  origin  of  this  re- 
markable rite.  The  case  admits  of  but  three  possible  sup- 
positions. Either  the  animals  referred  to  were  put  to  death 
by  our  first  parents,  to  supply  their  own  wants  of  food  or 
clothing  ;  or  they  died  a  natural  death;  or  they  were  slain 
as  piacular  victims.  The  first  is  in  every  view  incredible, 
as  is  proved  from  the  circumstances  in  which  Adam  and 
Eve  stood.  There  is  no  improbability  in  either  of  the  others. 
God  may  have  exhibited  to  the  culprits  the  agonies  of  death 
in  the  animal  frame,  in  order  to  show  them  part  of  the  con- 
sequence of  their  disobedience,  and  to  make  them  compre- 
hend with  the  more  feeling,  something  of  the  terror  of  the 
sentence,  "  thou  shalt  surely  die."  Or,  he  may  have  in- 
tended by  the  exhibition  to  institute  the  sacrificial  rite,  as 
emblematic  of  "  the  lamb  of  God  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world."  The  last  view  seems  most  in  unison  with 
the  benevolence  of  him,  who  "  so  loved  the  world  as  to  give 
his  only  begotten  son." 

(28.)  I  have  employed  this  language  with  a  view  to  what 


206  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  II. 

is  perhaps  the  true  meaning  of  v.  7.  "  If  thou  doest  not 
well,"  if  thou  continuest  to  purpose  and  act  wickedly;  "sin 
lieth  at  the  door,"  it  is  close  at  hand,  involving  guilt  and 
punishment,  and  tempting  thee  to  further  acts  of  iniquity : 
'  unto  thee  is  its  desire,'  it  longs  to  subject  thee  to  its  mere- 
tricious influence,  and  courts  thy  favor ;  '  but  thou  shouldst  rule 
over  it.'  Other  meanings  have,  indeed,  been  elicited  from  the 
Hebrew,  for  which  the  reader  must  consult  the  commenta- 
tors. Magee  on  the  Atonement,  No.  LXV.,  gives  various 
views,  both  ancient  and  modern.  He  explains  the  latter 
part  of  the  verse  of  Abel's  subjection  to  Cain,  the  elder 
brother :  "  thus  he  may  become  subject  to  thee,  and  thou 
mayest  have  the  dominion  over  him."  But  this  is  not  sup- 
ported by  the  meaning  of  np^ffivl  in  the  other  two  passages 
in  which  the  word  occurs,  viz.  Gen.  iii.  16,  and  Cant.  vii.  11, 
in  both  of  which  it  is  used  of  the  female,  and  conveys  the 
idea  of  inclination,  desire.     The  same  is  the  meaning  of  the 

corresponding  Arabic  word  /v\^jSj  ;  and  in  Rabbinical  He- 
brew p^tl)  is  used  in  the  same  sense.  The  interpretation  adopt- 
ed by  a  certain  Rabbi  Solomon,*  and  given  also  by  the  best  of 
the  later  Christian  interpreters,  is  probably  correct.     HflSb 

b^  "ipitri  ^trs5  Ji;>^  t^npb  nn^  T)3ti  ]^^t^  <y*ni  rs^t:n 
rp^m  mb^n  ptub  .inpi^n  i  ']^^t:nnb  5^:11  posn  ^b:n  nr 
fi5<  njii^  bijj^  <^!S!^t:nnb  nppint25?2  T)2^  njj5t:hn  b"i 
:  niitiD  mti5nn  p^i  ^d  'HI  btu)2b  bDiii  n^jin  "  sin  lieth 

*  The  work  here  referred  to  is  a  Comnientary  on  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
written  in  Rabbinical  Hebrew  by  a  learned  Jew  of  Dubno  in  Russia, 
and  printed  in  the  first  volume  (4to.)  of  the  ilblbD  T'^'^  (raised  up,  that 
is,  prepared  way :)  a  work  on  the  Pentateuch,  and  some  other  portions 
of  the  Old  Testament  used  by  the  Jews  in  the  Synagogue.  It  was 
published  in  Furth,  in  1801.  Besides  the  commentaries  of  this  writer, 
and  of  some  other  Jews,  it  contains  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  the  Com- 
mentary of  Rabbi  Solomon  Jarchi,  and  a  German  Translation  of  the 
whole  Pentateuch  by  the  celebrated  Moses  Mendelsohn,  printed  in 
Hebrew  letters.  This  publication  will  be  again  referred  to  in  these 
notes. 


CHA?.  II.  4— IV.  26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  207 

at  the  door.  Iniquity  is  continually  watching  to  take  thy  hfe, 
(or  soul  ItUSS,)  and  without  the  intermission  of  a  moment 
lies  in  wait  to  cause  thee  to  sin." — "  ItlpTSDri  denotes  eager 
desire.  The  meaning  is,  that  the  sin  (STlls^'Dnn)  continually 
desires  to  cause  thee  to  sin.  But,  if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst 
conquer  it,  for  the  ability  is  given  thee." 

Still  it  is  proper  to  remark,  that  in  the  other  passage  in 
Genesis  where  the  word  occurs,  it  is  followed  by  the  same 
language  as  in  the  verse  under  consideration.  In  the  one : 
"  thy  desire  shall  be  to  thy  husband,  and  he  shall  rule  over 
thee  ;"  in  the  other  :  "  unto  thee  shall  be  his  desire,  and  thou 
shalt  rule  over  him."  If,  therefore,  it  be  allowable  to  as- 
sume that  ^IP^tDiTl  had  the  general  meaning  of  acquiescence, 
subserviency,  thus  implying  simply  inferiority  in  the  one  and 
authority  and  right  in  the  other,  it  might  well  refer  to  Abel's 
obligation  to  submit  to  the  well  known  claims  of  his  elder 
brother  ;  and  this  indeed  would  give  a  very  natural  inter- 
pretation of  the  verse.  The  root  of  the  word  p^tU,  to  run 
after,  to  desire,  would  certainly  suit  such  a  general  mean- 
ing, although  there  is  no  direct  proof  that  the  derived  noun 
was  ever  used  in  this  sense. 

The  eighth  verse  is  probably  imperfect.  According  to 
the  authority  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  the  Septua- 
gint,  followed  by  the  Syriac  and  Vulgate  versions,  the 
former  part  of  the  verse  runs  thus :  '  And  Cain  said  unto 
Abel  his  brother,  let  us  go  out  into  the  field.'  This  agrees 
with  the  words  which  immediately  follow,  and  I  think  is 
more  probable  than  Dathe's  view,  who  gives  to  ^^IS'^1 
the  meaning  of  '  spoke  harshly  to,'  from  the  Arabic ;  and 
also,  than  that  of  Gesenius,  "  and  Cain  said  (it)  unto  Abel, 
that  is,  he  told  him  that  which  God  had  said  to  him  in  v.  7." 
Robinson's  Translation,  under  ^)55}^  1. 

29.  The  Hebrew  of  the  thirteenth  verse  is  ambiguous.     It 


208  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  11. 

may  be  rendered,  'my  iniquity  is  too  great  to  be  forgiven,'  (lit- 
erally, '  to  forgive' :)  or  :  '  my  punishment  is  too  great  to  bear.' 
The  latter  version  agrees  with  what  immediately  follows  ; 
the  former  gives  a  reason  for  what  is  said  in  the  fifteenth 
verse. — The  phrase  in  the  fourteenth,  "  from  thy  face  I  shall 
be  hid,"  may  allude  to  some  visible  exhibition  of  divine  ma- 
jesty, from  all  connexion  with  which  Cain  was  to  be  de- 
barred ;  but  most  likely  it  is  figurative,  in  allusion  to  the 
usage  of  monarchs,  (see  note  9,  p.  142,  143,)  admis- 
sion to  whose  presence  (or  face,)  was  always  an  indica- 
tion of  favor. — The  last  part  of  the  verse  intimates  the 
remorse  of  Cain,  and  the  horror  which  he  supposed  his 
fratricide  would  occasion  in  the  mind  of  every  one  not  lost 
to  the  ordinary  feelings  of  nature. 

"  The  Lord  set  a  mark  upon  Cain."  The  absurdities  to 
which  this  erroneous  translation  has  given  rise,  may  well 
be  passed  over.  The  inquisitive  reader  will  find  them  in 
Patrick's  note.  The  term  flii^  is  generally  used  to  denote 
an  attestation  or  sign,  intended  to  confirm  the  truth  of  some 
declaration,  and  it  is  often  applied  to  designate  a  miraculous 
attestation.  As  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  which  would 
determine  the  nature  of  this  sign,  it  is  impossible  to  arrive 
at  certainty. — Instead  of  "XDj,  therefore,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  verse,  some  manuscripts  read  15  ^'^'j  not  so ;  and  this 
sense  is  given  by  the  Septuagint,  Symmachus,  Theodotion, 
and  by  the  Syriac  and  Vulgate  versions.  It  is  followed  by 
Dathe :  "  nequaquam."  The  common  reading  is  the  more 
difficult,  and,  therefore,  the  more  likely  to  be  true.  It  admits 
of  a  clear  sense,  and,  I  think,  it  agrees  with  the  use  o( 
5(a  tSto  in  John  vii.  22,  and  Rom.  v.  12.  The  meaning  seems 
to  be,  '  consequently,'  consistently  with  what  has  been  said, 
or  is  about  to  be  said. 

(30.)  The  land  of  Nod,  that  is,  of  wandering,  or  flight ; 
from  ^:i5,  "  to  be  driven  about,  to  wander." 


CKAP.  Ill  4 — IV.  26.]  NOTE3    TO    GENESIS.  2O'0 

(31.)  The  fragmentary  character  of  these  verses,  which 
are  also  poetic  in  their  structure,  makes  them  necessarily 
obscure.  The  Jewish  fiction  appended  to  this  imperfect 
account  may  be  found  in  Patrick  and  other  commentators. 
It  is  also  given  in  full  in  the  Rabbinical  work,  entitled  '  the 
Book  of  Jasher,'  a  translation  of  which  has  lately  been  pub- 
lished in  this  city.  The  words  in  the  latter  part  of  v.  23 
may  be  rendered  interrogatively,  and  thus  the  innocence  of 
Lamech  will  be  contrasted  with  the  guilt  of  Cain,  and  the 
groundlessness  of  the  women's  uneasiness  made  evident. 
Or,  they  may  be  affirmative,  implying  that  although  Lamech 
had  indeed  slain  a  young  man,  it  was  in  self-defence.  The 
equivalent  phrases,  "  to  my  wounding — to  my  hurt," — may 
intimate,  that  the  danger  of  being  hurt  and  wounded  by  this 
youth's  attack,  compelled  him  to  the  act.  Or,  according  to 
another  view  adopted  by  Dathe  and  Rosenmiiller,  they  may 
refer  to  contemplated  aggression  against  Lamech  on  the 
part  of  the  friends  of  the  person  whom  he  had  killed :  "  to  my 
wounding,"  that  is,  so  as  to  result  in  my  being  attacked  and 
injured. 

(32.)  I  have  endeavored  in  the  analysis  to  give  a  meaning 
which  combines  the  two  most  ancient  and  satisfactory  in- 
terpretations. The  Targums  and  some  other  Jewish  au- 
thorities suppose  a  direct  reference  to  the  rise  of  idolatry 
and  the  increase  of  wickedness,  and  translate  the  Hebrew 
word,  "  profaned"  ;  a  sense  whidh  it  often  bears  in  Piel. 
Some  critics,  comparing  the  words  with  such  places  as  Isa. 
xliv.  5,  xlviii.  1,  translate  thus  :  '  then  it  was  begun  (or,  men 
began)  to  call,  (namely,  one's  self,  or  to  be  called,)  by  the 
name  of  the  Lord.'  Thus  Dathe.  As  the  invariable  mean- 
ing of  the  phrase  in  the  Old  Testament  is  '  to  worship,'  the 
usage  of  language  certainly  requires  the  same  sense  here. 
See  the  excellent  notes  of  Vossius  on  the  first  section  of 
27 


210  N0TE3    TO    GENESIS.  [part  in  , 

Maimonides'  Treatise  on  Idolatry,  and  those  of  Rosenmiiller 
on  this  text. — But,  as  it  is  evident  from  incidental  notices  in  the 
history,  that  the  nuniber  of  Adam's  progeny  must  have  been 
very  considerable  long  before  this  time,  it  would  seem  alto- 
gether improbable,  that  the  origin  of  divine  worship,  and 
even  of  public  worship,  should  have  been  contemporaneous 
with  the  birth  of  Enos.  This  difficulty  is  avoided  by  sup- 
posing the  sacred  writer  to  use  the  expression  in  an  em- 
phatic sense,  as  referring  to  the  public  profession  of  true 
religion  in  opposition  to  idolatry  and  wickedness  of  every 
kind.     The  contents  of  the  sixth  chapter  confirm  this  view. 


Part  III.     Chap.  v.  1 — vi.  9. 

(33.)  Adam  is  properly  a  generic  term  for  man,  but  is 
here  employed  as  a  proper  name,  designating  the  first  of  his 
race.  It  may  therefore  be  translated  either  '  Adam'  or  'man,' 
as  the  ease  requires. 

(34.)  General  view  of  the  discrepancies  of  the  Hebrew, 
Samaritan,  and  Septuagint  chronology  until  the  deluge ; 
from  Jahn's  Hebrew  Bible,  p.  12. 

According  to  the  Samaritan,  Jared,  Methuselah,  and 
Lamech  died  in  the  same  year  ;  and  therefore,  probably,  it 
is  artificially  constructed.  See  Bible  de  Vence,  Tom.  I. 
p.  54G,  ss. 


CHAP.   V.  1 VI.  9.] 


NOTES    TO    GENESIS. 


211 


Befor 
Heb. 

139 

105 
90 
70 
65 

162 
65 

187 

182 

500 

1556 

1656 

e  Paternity. 

After  Paternity. 

T.ital.             1 

Sam. 
130 
105 
90 
70 
65 
62 
65 
67 

53 

500 
1207 
1307 

Sept. 

230 

205 

190 

170 

165 

162 

165 

187 
167 

188 

500 

2172 

■2272 

Heb. 
800 
807 
815 
840 
830 
800 
300 
782 

595 

Sam. 
800 
807 
815 
840 
830 
785 
300 
653 

600 

Sept 

700 

707 

715 

740 

730 

800 

200 

782 
802 

565 

Heb. 
930 
912 
905 
910 
895 
962 
365 
969 

777 

Sam. 
930 
912 
905 
910 
895 
847 
365 
720 

653 

Sept. 
930 
912 
905 
910 
895 
962 
365 
969 

753 

Adam 

Seth 

Enos 

Cainan 

Mahalalecl 

Jared 

Enoch 

Methuselah.      .     .     , 

Lamech 

Noah.       .     .     . 

Total 

Deluge.      .     .     . 

It  is  observable,  that  the  construction  of  the  notice  of 
Noah  in  v.  32,  differs  from  that  of  all  the  preceding  notices. 
These  state  the  age  of  the  individual  spoken  of,  first,  before 
paternity  is  nnentioned  ;  secondly,  the  time  he  afterwards 
lived  ;  and,  thirdly,  the  whole  sum  of  his  life.  Here  it  is 
said :  "  and  Noah  was  five  hundred  years  old  ;  and  Noah 
begat  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth."  The  difference  is  easily 
accounted  for.  The  three  sons  of  Noah  are  introduced,  and 
not  merely  the  first  born,  because  they  make  so  prominent 
a  figure  in  the  history  which  immediately  follows.  After  giv- 
ing an  account  of  the  flood,  with  the  cause  that  gave  rise  to  it, 
and  some  important  matters  closely  connected  with  it, 
(vi.  1 — ix.  27,)  the  author  proceeds  with  the  genealogy  in 


212  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [paet  m. 

ix,  28,  29  :  "  And  Noah  lived  after  the  flood  three  hundred 
and  fifty  years.  And  all  the  days  of  Noah  were  nhie  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years,  and  he  died."  It  is  remarkable,  that 
the  same  method  of  representation  is  pursued  in  xlvii.  28  : 
"  And  Jacob  lived  in  the  land  of  Egypt  seventeen  years  ; 
so  the  whole  age  of  Jacob  was  an  hundred  forty  and  seven 
years."  In  the  former  case,  the  period  that  Noah  lived 
after  the  flood  is  first  stated,  with  which  the  time  that  Ja- 
cob lived  in  Egypt  corresponds.  This  is  followed,  in  the 
one  case,  by  a  notice  of  "  all  the  days  of  Noah,"  and,  in  the 
other,  of  "  the  whole  age  of  Jacob." — The  possibility  of 
these  two  portions  having  been  written  by  different  authors, 
is,  of  course,  undeniable,  as  one  writer  might  readily  imitate 
another  ;  but,  certainly,  the  commonly  received  opinion,  that 
the  whole  book  is  the  work  of  one  individual,  harmonizes 
exactly  with  the  internal  evidence  hence  resulting. 

(35.)  The  phrase  "  walked  with  God,"  which  is  used  of 
Enoch  in  v.  22,  24,  denotes  friendly  and  intimate  inter- 
course, and  consequently  implies  similarity  of  character. 
Comp.  the  Heb.  in  1  Sam.  xxv.  15,  and  Amos  iii.  3.  The 
Targum  of  Onkelos  explains  the  general  sense  :  '  walked  in 
the  fear  of  God.'  To  the  same  purpose  the  Septuagint 
Jua^sVTTjrfs,  which  is  employed  also  in  Heb.  xi.  5,  "  he  pleased 
God." — Perhaps,  indeed,  the  Hebrew  narrative  would  not 
alone  justify  a  positive  opinion  in  favor  of  Enoch's  transla- 
tion, but  the  passage  in  the  epistle  just  referred  to,  is  de- 
cisive with  all  who  acknowledge  its  divine  authority.  Still 
the  Hebrew  alone  would  suggest  something  extraordinary. 
For  while  it  is  said  of  every  other  patriarch  in  this  genealo- 
gical list,  "  and  he  died"  ;  the  language  used  respecting 
Enoch  is  very  diflferent :  "  he  was  not,  for  God  took  him." 
It  is  not  therefore  surprising  that  the  oldest  Jewish  interpre- 
ters, the  author  of  the  Apocryphal  Book  of  Wisdom,  xliv. 


-CHAP.  V.  1— VI.  9.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  213 

16,  and  the  Targumists,  Onkelos  and  Pseudo-Jonathan, 
agree  in  the  opinion  that  Enoch  was  translated  to  heaven. 
And,  indeed,  to  suppose  that  the  holy  man's  piety  was  re- 
warded with  an  early  death,  as  must  be  allowed  unless  he 
were  removed  alive  like  EHjah,  would  be  entirely  inconsis- 
tent with  the  representations  which  pervade  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. "  Length  of  days"  and  numerous  offspring  remune- 
rate the  devoted  servant  of  God. 

(36.)  It  is  uncertain  whether  Noah's  name  were  imposed 
immediately  on  his  birth,  or  on  some  subsequent  occasion. 
He  is  called  ri5  rest,  and  yet  his  father  says,  this  one  ^D^^rj^"! 
will  comfort  us.  The  Septuagint  either  read  the  text  dif- 
ferently, or  it  explains  the  meaning  :  SiavairaCasi  riixag,  shall 
give  us  rest ;  and  several  commentators  would,  by  a  slight 
alteration  of  the  text,  adapt  it  to  this  sense.  They  propose 
to  read  ^5n"'p"l.  But  all  such  expedients  are  unnecessary. 
^5)2)15'^.  rather  appears  to  be  an  allusion  to  (15,  or  a  parono- 
masia with  it,  than  intended  to  give  an  etymological  reason 
of  the  name.  Comp.  Gen.  xlix.  19,  where  we  have 
^51^^i  'mii  15,  where  the  paronomasia  is  equally  evident, 
although  the  association  arising  from  the  meaning  of  the 
words  is  very  indistinct. 

(37.)  This  appears  to  be  the  most  satisfactory  exposition 
of  the  text.  That  magistrates  are  intended  by  the  phrase, 
"  sons  of  God"  ;  or  that  the  higher  ranks  are  said  to  have 
amalgamated  with  the  lower,  or  (as  very  ancient  interpret- 
ers, both  Jewish  and  Christian,  maintained,)  that  angels  are 
represented  as  having  had  intercourse  with  women,  whence 
giants  are  said  to  have  sprung,  the  demigods  and  heroes  of 
ancient  mythology,  are  notions,  which,  however  they  may 
vary  in  degrees  of  extravagance,  are  alike  unsupported  by 
sober  and  rational  investigation.  It  is  surprising  that 
Drechsler  (ubi  sup.  p.  91,  92,)  attempts  to  defend  the  last 


1214  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  III. 

mentioned  sense  of  the  phrase  "  sons  of  God."  He  supposes 
fallen  angels  to  be  meant,  and,  in  proof  of  their  being  called 
by  this  appellation,  appeals  to  Job  i.  6,  ii.  2.  But  here,  and 
in  xxxviii,  7,  of  the  same  book,  holy  angels  are  evidently 
designated.  This  is  indisputable  in  the  last  passage.  And 
in  the  other  two,  Satan  is  not  said  to  be  one  of  the  sons  of 
God  ;  it  is  merely  said  that  he  presented  himself  among 
them.  This  would  seem  to  be  very  unnecessarily  intro- 
duced, if  he  belonged  to  their  number ;  whereas,  if  he  ap- 
peared in  the  hght  of  an  informer  or  accuser,  intruding 
among  beings  with  whom  he  had  no  right  to  associate,  the 
notice  of  his  presence  in  this  holy  company  is  altogether 
natural.  The  sons  of  God  are  probably  those  of  the  pious 
race,  and  the  daughters  of  men,  the  ungodly,  (idolators  per- 
haps. Comp.  iv.  26,)  who  appear  to  be  so  called  by  anti- 
thesis, as  they  are  styled  in  the  New  Testament,  children  of 
the  devil,  or  of  this  world.     See  1  John  iii.  10.  Luke  xvi.  8. 

(38.)  "liTj~i%b.  For  the  various  interpretations  of  this 
phrase,  see  the  commentators.  All  the  most  important  views 
may  be  found  in  Dathe's  note.  Most  of  the  ancient  versions 
give  the  sense  of  '  shall  not  remain' ;  s  fiii  xaraixeiv*].  Sept. 
non  permanebit:  Vulg.  Probably  they  read  I^D^  or  l^l"^ 
although  Gesenius  thinks  this  supposition  unnecessary.  See 
him  on  the  word  "l^T  or  ll'l.  His  own  view  is  not  very  intel- 
ligible, either  in  the  original  Latin  or  the  English  translation. 
"  In  the  first  edition  of  the  larger  Lexicon,"  which  contains, 
he  says,  "  the  view  to  which  he  has  returned,"  his  language 
is  as  follows  :  "  My  spirit,  the  divine  which  dwells  in  them, 
(the  divine  nature  imparted  to  them,)  shall  not  be  debased, 
dishonored  in  man  forever,  since  he  is  flesh  ;  or,  tiirough  his 
criminal  conduct ;  flesh  is  he."  See  Handworterbuch, 
Leipzig,  1810,  Vol.  I.  p.  187.  Ewald  gives  a  similar  in- 
terpretation. Komposition  der  Genesis,  p.  203,  204,  note. 
Their  meaning  appears  to  be,  that  the  spirit  should  not  al- 


^ 


CHAP.  V.  1— VI,  9.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  215' 

ways  be  subjected,  as  it  were,  to  degradation  and  contempt 
by  dwelling  among  such  abandoned  men.  This  interpreta- 
tion of  the  word  "  spirit"  was  probably  taken  from  the  Dub- 
nian  Commentator  in  the  Jlblbt)  'I'll :  at  least,  it  accords  with 
that  given  by  him.  "My  celestial  (iTIiT'bS'n)  spirit  which  I 
breathed  into  man  shall  not  continually  contend  and  strive 
with  flesh.  ItDl  b^lH  Qti'©!!:  because  he  truly  is  flesh,  and 
not  divine  spirit  (literally,  spirit  of  God,  'VVb!^  rTT^,)  alone, 
but  compounded  of  flesh  and  spirit." 

Ewald  (ubi  sup.)  remarks  further,  that  if  the  expression, 
"  his  days  shall  be  one  hundred  and  twenty  years,"  related 
to  the  term  of  respite  allowed  to  the  antediluvians,  the 
fact  that  such  a  period  was  granted,  would  afterwards  be 
stated,  agreeably  to  the  writer's  usage.  But  we  may  well 
ask  in  this  author's  own  language  on  another  occasion, 
(p.  214,)  "  must  the  narrator  cling  so  tenaciously  to  his 
form  ?"  The  execution  of  some  threats  he  has  indeed  par- 
ticularly specified,  but  not  of  all ;  and  why  should  it  be  as- 
sumed that  this  must  be  of  the  number  ?  The  coming  of 
the  flood  at  the  proper  time  would  sufficiently  mark  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  threat  to  the  party  chiefly  interested  ; 
and  to  others  living  after  the  flood,  the  fact  itself  as  a  divine 
judgment  and  warning  was  all  important,  not  its  chronolo- 
gical relation  to  the  period  of  the  threatening. 

If  ']^l'l  be  equivalent  to  "^^T  (and  verbs  "15?  and  "'^3?  oftei* 
interchange  their  middle  radical,)  the  old  translation  of 
Symmachus  i  x^/vsi  will  give  the  sense,  and  this  coincides 
with  our  own  version,  "  shall  not  strive  with,"  as  one  does, 
who  is  always  judging,  and  censuring  another's  conduct.  Or, 
agreeably  to  the  Hebrew  use  of  the  word  'judge,'  it  may 
convey  the  idea  of  government,  as  if  it  were  said,  '  my  Spirit 
shall  not  always  rule  (endeavor  to  rule)  in  man ;  after  a 
limited  period,  I  will  abandon  him  to  his  guilt  and  its 
punishment.' 


216  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  iv. 

(39.)  C^bSSn  or  Q^b'^SS'l  :  both  forms  occur  in  Num. 
xiii.  33.  These  are  the  only  two  places  in  which  the  word 
is  found.  Our  translation  renders  it  "  giants,"  in  accordance 
with  some  of  the  ancient  versions,  particularly  the  Septua- 
gint  and  Vulgate,  which  have  /I'/avrsj,  gigantes,  Aquila  has 
/Sfaiscr,  Symmachus  £*i'7rtVTovTaff,  Onkelos  5j5^"]!IL'3  powerful,  the 

Syriac  i  Vaju.^.  ,the  same.  Other  authorities  give  it  the  sense 
of  revolters,  apostates.  Any  one  of  these  meanings  agrees 
with  the  radical  idea  of  the  word,  and  suits  the  context.  The 
Dubnian  Commentator  on  v.  2  thinks  it  implies  inferiority, 
degeneracy,  a  falling  off  as  we  say,  from  their  forefathers. 
He  refers  to  Job  xii.  3,  tD3^  ^pj^  bS j-i<"b,  I  am  not  in- 
ferior to  you." 

Part  IV.     Chap.  vi.  9— xi.  29. 

(40.)  f'li^ri-iliiS^ryzV/i  the  earth.  So  Onkelos  Q5?  ;  the  Sep- 
*  tuagint  gives  the  meaning  xai  Tr,v  y~qv.  Some  prefer  the  sense  of 
from,  as  if  it  were  t^^)^,  but  this  is  unnecessary.  The 
threatened  destruction  of  the  earth  by  no  means  implies  its 
being  reduced  to  fragments,  or  the  crushing  to  pieces  (as  some, 
especially  those  of  the  Hutchinsonian  school,  have  maintained) 
of  its  exterior  crust.  General  desolation  and  ruin  of  the  sur- 
face, are  what  is  meant.  Whether  the  deluge  extended  over 
the  whole  earth,  or  was  confined  to  those  regions  of  Asia 
which  are  contiguous  to  the  countries  in  which  mankind 
originally  settled,  has  been  much  disputed.  The  strong  and 
unqualified  representations  contained  in  the  account  itself, 
(see  particularly  vii.  19  ss.)  would  seem  to  favor  the  affir- 
mative. But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  said  with  truth 
that  general  statements  are  often  limited  by  the  very  na- 
ture of  the  case,  and  the  author  may  be  supposed  to  speak 
of  the  world  as  then  known.  Certain  it  is,  that  language 
equally  general  in  its  meaning  with  that  here  employed  in 


tHAp.  VI.  9— IX.  29.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  217 

reference  to  the  flood,  is  elsewhere  used  in  a  very  limited 
sense.  Thus  we  read  in  Gen.  xli.  54,  56,  57,  that  "  the 
dearth  was  in  all  lands,  and  the  famine  was  over  all  the  face 
of  the  earth,  and  all  countries  came  into  Egypt  to  buy  corn, 
because  the  famine  was  sore  in  all  lands  ;"  while  it  is  evi- 
dent, from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  that  the  application 
to  Egypt  for  food  must  have  been  partial,  and  therefore,  in 
all  probability,  so  also  was  the  distress.  In  the  same  sort 
of  language,  God  tells  the  Israelites,  that  he  "  will  begin  to 
put  the  fear  of  them  and  the  dread  of  them  upon  the  na- 
tions that  are  under  the  whole  heaven,  who  shall  hear  re- 
port of  them  and  shall  tremble,"  (Deut.  ii.  25  ;)  although  it 
is  not  to  be  doubted,  that  he  refers  to  the  immediately  sur- 
rounding nations,  and  those  that  might  hear  of  the  wonders 
performed  in  favor  of  the  Hebrew  people.  In  the  same 
limited  sense  it  is  said  in  general  terms,  on  occasion  of  the 
Pentecostal  feast,  that  "  there  were  dwelling  at  Jerusalem 
devout  men,  out  of  every  nation  under  heaven,"  (^  Acts  ii.  5  ;) 
and  again,  that  "  the  gospel  had  been  preached  to  every 
creature  which  is  under  heaven."  (Col.  i.  23.)  It  is  needless 
to  multiply  instances  of  this  usage.  TJie  universality  of  the 
flood  cannot  be  proved  solely  from  the  unlimited  nature  of 
the  language  expressing  it ;  although  this  language  ought  to 
be  understood  in  its  plainest  sense,  as  asserting  a  general 
deluge,  unless  sufficient  reason  can  be  given  for  qualifying 
it  by  certain  limitations. 

It  is  said  again,  that  the  supposition  of  a  general  deluge 
corresponds  with  universal  tradition,  which  "  furnishes  am- 
ple proof  that  this  great  event  is  indelibly  graven  upon  the 
memory  of  the  human  race,  and  attested  by  the  consent  of 
mankind." 

But,  as  it  is  correctly  remarked  by  Dr.  Smith,  (ubi  sup. 
p.  92,)  "it  is  remarkable,  that  learned  writers  have  not  per- 
ceived the  absence  of  any  logical  connexion  between  the 
28 


218  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  ir. 

universality  of  historical  tradition,  and  a  geographical  uni- 
versality of  the  deluge  itself.     Immense  pains  have  been 
taken,  and  very  laudably,  to  collect  the  traditions  of  tribes 
and  nations  deposing  to  the  fact  of  an  overwhelming  deluge 
in  the  days  of  their  remotest  ancestors  ;  and  it  has  been 
hence   concluded,   since   those   traditions   existed    in    every 
quarter  of  the  globe,  that  the  deluge  had  belonged  to  every 
region.     But  it  seems  to  have  been  forgotten,  that  each  of 
those  traditionary  and  historical  notices  referred  to  one  and 
the  same  locality,  the  seat  of  the  family  of  Noah,  the  cradle 
of  the  human  race."     Most  undoubtedly  the  fact  of  an  uni- 
versal deluge,  and  the  universally  existing  tradition  of  a 
deluge,  ai-e   far   from    being   identical.     Those  who   have 
argued  from  the  latter  to  the  former,  seem  to  have  over- 
looked the   important  fact,  that,  as   all   men  sprang   from 
Noah,  their  traditions  are  to  be  traced  to  their  origin,  and 
that  they  would  naturally  bring  these  traditions  to  any  re- 
gion in  which  they  might  subsequently  settle.     Commenta- 
tors have  reasoned  as  if  the  traditions  had  originated  in  the 
various  regions  in  which  every  diversity  of  the  human  spe- 
cies has  been  found. 

Some  of  the  most  remarkable  traditionary  circumstances 
are  mentioned  in  Bochart's  Phaleg,  Lib.  I.  cap.  i.,  a  work 
replete  with  curious  and  interesting  learning,  and  in  Mau- 
rice's History  of  Hindostan,  Part  III.  chap.  xiii.  Vol.  I. 
p.  453  ss.  Many  of  them  are  staled  by  Professor  Hitcb- 
cocK,  in  his  Essay,  entitled  "  The  Historical  and  Geological 
Deluges  Compared,"  published  in  the  Biblical  Repository, 
No.  XXV.  January,  1837,  p.  81—93.  A  vast  deal  of  cu- 
rious and  interesting  matter  relating  to  the  ancient  traditions 
of  the  deluge,  has  been  collected  by  Bryant,  in  the  third 
_  volume  of  his  Analysis  of  Mythology.  If  we  cannot  al- 
ways acquiesce  in  the  soundness  of  the  author's  reasoning, 
we  cannot  but  be  surprised  at  the  extent  of  his  reading,  and 


CHAP.  VI.  9— IX.  29.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  219 

must  acknowledge  that  he  has  adduced  very  much  from 
ancient  authorities  corroborative  of  the  scriptural  account. 
See  also  Wiseman's  Lectures  on  the  connexion  between  sci- 
ence and  revealed  religion,  Lect.  IX.  p.  289  ss. 

The  universality  of  the  deluge  has  also  been  supposed  to 
be  confirmed  by  numerous  phenomena  exhibited  in  various 
parts  of  the  strata  which  form  the  exterior  of  the  globe. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  state  them  in  detail.  Recent  geological 
investigations  and  discoveries  have  induced  many  learned 
and  scientific  men,  some  of  whom  are  also  sincere  believers 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  ascribe  these 
phenomena  to  the  natural  influence  of  causes  operating  in 
periods  of  time  antecedent  to  the  present  arrangement  and 
formation  of  the  earth.  It  is  difficult  to  perceive  how  they 
could  possibly  have  been  produced  by  the  ordinary  opera- 
tions of  any  deluge. 

An  argument  has  been  drawn  in  favor  of  the  deluge  hav- 
ing been  partial,  from  the  supposed  comparative  paucity  of 
mankind.  This  is  thought  to  be  supported  by  "  the  paucity 
of  birth  which  not  obscurely  shows  itself  in  the  genealogi- 
cal table,  (Gen.  v.  3 — 28,)  the  length  of  individual  lives" 
being  supposed  "  to  compensate  for  the  slowness  of  multi- 
plication," and  "  moral  depravity"  having  its  natural  "  effect 
in  diminishing  the  fecundity  of  the  human  species."  Smith, 
p.  250.  The  correctness  and  applicability  of  this  last  ob- 
servation need  not  be  questioned.  But  when  the  author 
proceeds  to  confirm  his  reasoning  by  remarking  "  that  no 
children  of  Noah  are  mentioned  till  he  was  five  hundred 
years  old,  and  that  a  century  later,  his  three  sons,  each  hav- 
ing a  wife,  had  no  children,"  meaning  undoubtedly  had  never 
become  parents,  (p.  251  ;)  he  adopts  a  species  of  argumen- 
tation, which,  although  too  commonly  applied  to  the  scrip- 
tures, is  nevertheless  unsound.  He  reasons  from  the  absence 
of  information  respecting  a  subject  to  its  want  of  existence. 


220  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.     *  [part  iv. 

Is  it  certain  that  Noah's  three  sons,  each  of  whom  was  mar- 
ried, had  had  no  children  when  their  father  was  six  hundred 
years  old,  because  no  children  are  mentioned  ?  If  such  a 
method  of  reasoning  were  applied  to  the  scriptural  narrative 
of  Cain  and  Abel,  the  facts  related  concerning  them  would 
be  altogether  inexplicable.  The  length  of  antediluvian  life, 
after  all  proper  allowance  for  its  dissoluteness,  during  the 
period  of  time  under  consideration,  would  admit  of  the  ex- 
istence of  a  large  population  on  the  globe  at  the  time  of 
the  flood. 

In  favor  of  the  universality  of  the  deluge,  the  reader  is 
referred  to  a  dissertation  in  the  Sainte  Bible,  en  Latin  et  en 
Frangois,  avec  des  notes  litterales,  critiques  et  historiques, 
des  prefaces  et  des  dissertations,  drawn  from  the  works  of 
Calmet,  De  Vence  and  others,  in  17  vols.  4to.,  Tome  I. 
p.  414 — 438.  The  author  replies  to  the  objections  of  Vossius, 
who  maintained  the  opinion,  that  the  deluge  was  partial, 
In  this  opinion,  Dathe  also  coincides ;  but  he  advances  noth- 
ing new  in  support  of  it.     See  his  note  {d)  on  vii.  20. 

(41.)  Bochart  has  shown  that,  in  all  probability,  the  term 
•^SJ  means  cypress,  which,  indeed,  seems  to  be  radically  the 
same  word.  See  his  Phaleg,  Lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  p.  22,  23. — 
Schultens  supposes  "^Jl^  to   be   equivalent   to  the  Arabic 

l^to.  the  back,  and  to  be  used  for  the  roof  of  the  ark,  the 
elevation  of  which  was  to  be  no  more  than  a  cubit,  allow- 
ing, he  thinks,  sufficient  descent  to  carry  off  the  rain.  And 
this,  he  supposes,  is  what  is  meant  by  the  Septuagint, 
J'TKj'uvaywv,  which  he  explains  by  contracting,  "  colligens  et 
contrahens,  superne  facies  arcam."  See  his  Observationes 
ad  Genesin,  Cap.  I.  It  is  quite  as  probable,  however,  that 
^witfuvayojv  is  used  to  denote  the  collecting  of  materials  for 
the  building. — Our  translation  "  window"  agrees  with  the 
Yulgate  '  fenestram,'  and  the  version  of  Symmachus  ^lafpavjV' 


CHAP.  VI.  9— IX.  29.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  221 

And  it  is  probably  correct,  the  singular  being  used  collec- 
tively. The  word  properly  means  light,  and  seems  to  be 
employed  by  a  metonymy  for  window.  With  the  exception 
of  this  text,  it  is  always  found  in  the  dual  form.  It  is  used 
to  express  midday,  thus  characterized  by  its  bright,  clear, 
light. 

(42.)  The  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  animals  most 
likely  originated  in  the  laws  and  usages  connected  with  sacri- 
fices, although  it  is  certain  that  subsequently  it  obtained  also  in 
reference  to  meats  which  were  considered  as  fit  for  food.  In 
common  with  many  other  patriarchal  institutions,  it  after- 
wards became  a  law  of  the  Mosaic  system,  in  which  several  of 
those  institutions  were  incorporated.  See  the  dissertation 
of  H.  S.  Reimar,  entitled,  Cogitationes  de  legibus  Mosaicis 
ante  Mosen,  in  the  Commentationes  Theologicse,  edited  by 
Velthusen,  KutNOEL,  and  Ruperti,  Vol.  VI.  p.  1 — 74.  It  has 
been  thought  that  the  number  of  clean  animals  to  be  brought 
into  the  ark  was  fourteen,  but  it  would  be  difficult  to  account 
for  so  large  a  number  being  required,  and  the  Hebrews  ex- 
press the  same  number  of  different  species  or  individuals  by 
a  reduplication.  See  especially,  Num.  iii.  47,  in  the  He- 
brew, and  Mark  vi.  7,  40,  in  Greek.  If  seven  was  regarded 
as  a  sacred  number  before  the  flood,  as  seems  probable 
from  the  paradisaical  origin  of  the  Sabbath,  and  agrees  with 
certain  intimations  contained  in  this  narrative,  (comp.  vii.  4, 
viii.  10,  12;)  this  would  account  for  the  selection.  And  if  all 
the  clean  animals  lived,  as  is  altogether  probable,  the  num- 
ber of  each  sort  would  be  reduced  to  an  even  quantity, 
three  of  either  sex,  after  Noah  had  made  the  offering  men- 
tioned in  viii.  20. 

A  comparison  of  vi.  20,  vii.  2,  and  vii.  8,  9,  seems  to 
show  a  discrepancy.  But  it  is  only  apparent.  In  the  first, 
two  fowls  of  every  sort  are  mentioned ;  in  the  second,  seven 


222  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  iv. 

fowls,  meaning,  however,  as  the  preceding  verse  intimates, 
those  which  were  accounted  clean.  In  the  third,  it  is  said  : 
"  of  clean  beasts,  and  of  beasts  that  are  not  clean,  and  of 
fowls,  and  of  every  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth,  there 
went  in  two  and  two."  But  this  does  not  contradict  what 
had  just  been  stated.  The  language  is  not  professedly  criti- 
cal, but  rather  popular.  Either  the  phrase  "  two  and  two" 
is  to  be  limited  to  the  unclean  animals  who  had  been  last 
mentioned,  or  the  meaning  is,  that  two  at  least  of  every 
sort,  clean  as  well  as  unclean,  were  preserved.  It  would  be 
absurd  to  suppose,  that,  in  such  a  matter,  a  writer  of  merely 
ordinary  intelligence  could  contradict  himself  within  the 
space  of  a  few  lines. 

(43.)  The  land  of  Ararat  is  the  Hebrew  expression  in  2 
Kings  xix.  37,  where  our  translators  very  correctly  translate 
it  "Armenia."  That  the  ark  rested  in  this  region,  on  the  Gor- 
dioean  mountains,  has  been  most  conclusively  evinced,  with 
a  vast  amount  of  learning,  (more  suo,)  by  Bochart,  Phaleg, 
Lib.  I.  cap.  iv. 

(44.)  The  prohibition  of  "  flesh  with  the  life"  or  "  the 
blood,"  may  have  originated  in  motives  of  humanity,  with 
the  view  of  preventing  the  horrible  practice  of  eating  the 
flesh  of  living  creatures.  From  the  character  of  many  of 
the  antediluvians,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  such 
abuses  had  been  practised  before  the  flood  ;  and  it  is  well 
known,  that  since  that  period  uncivilized  man  has  committed 
the  same  enormity.  As  the  life  was  thought  to  subsist  in  the 
blood,  (comp.  Deut.  xii.  23.  So  Josephus,  Ant.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ill. 
§  8,  xwpiV  ai^uTo^'  iv  TiTw  ya^  sg-iv  >j  -^^x^-  Hudson's  edition,  p. 
14,)  the  law  may  have  been  intended  to  interdict  even  the 
use  of  blood,  in  order  to  excite  the  greater  abhorrence  of 
the  abuse  just  mentioned.     It  had  also  a  religious  bearing, 


CHAP.  VI.  9— IX.  29.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  223 

and  was  designed  to  impress  on  the  public  mind,  the  awful 
sanctity  of  that  justice  which  required  the  blood  of  the  vic- 
tim to  atone  for  the  sinner's  guilt.     See  Levit.  xvii.  10 — 14. 

(45.)  It  is  not  certain  that  this  law  is  positive  and  peremp- 
tory.   Like  some  others,  afterwards  introduced  into  the  He- 
brew code,  it  may  be  merely  permissive,  to  be  followed  ac- 
cording to  the  discretion  of  the  judiciary,  governed  by  circum- 
stances, as   some  Jewish  commentators  affirm  to  have  been 
the  case  with  respect  to  the   law  of  retaliation  of  Ex.  xxi. 
24,  25.  Levit.  xxiv.  19,  20.     But  if  it  be  a  positive   com- 
mand, its  universal  obligation  by  no  means  follows.     The 
circumstances  and  condition  of  mankind  may  so  vary  from 
the  state  in  which  they  were  when  the  law  was  originally 
promulged,  as  to  make  the  continuance  of  the  penalty  high- 
ly inexpedient  and  improper.     The  grounds  on  which  laws 
are  mutable  or  unchangeably  binding,  is  admirably  settled 
by  Hooker,  in  his  third  Book,  §  10.     His  remarks  are  well 
worthy  of  attentive   consideration.     I  cannot  refrain  from 
quoting  the  following  sentence,  from  its  remarkable  applica- 
bility to  the  subject.     "  Laws,  though  both  ordained  of  God 
himself,  and  the  end  for  which  they  were  ordained  con- 
tinuing, may  notwithstanding  cease,  if,  by  alteration  of  per- 
sons or  times,  they  be  found  unsufficient  to  attain  unto  that 
end.     In  which  respect,  why  may  we  not  presume  that  God 
doth  even  call  for  such  change  or  alteration  as  the  very  con- 
dition of  things  themselves  doth  make  necessary?"  Vol.  I. 
p.  398,  Oxford  edition,  1793. 

(46.)  A  clear  and  interesting  view  of  this  prophecy  is 
given  by  Bishop  Newton  in  his  first  dissertation  on  the  pro- 
phecies. But  there  is  not  sufficient  reason  for  reading 
'  Ham,  the  father  of  Canaan,'  instead  of  "  Canaan,"  as  he 
proposes.  As  the  prophecy  has  in  view  the  descendants  of 
the  persons  named  and  not  the  individuals  themselves,  and 
as  it  is  by  no  means  necessary  to  assume  that  all  the  descen- 


224  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  v, 

dants  of  each  individual  are  intended ;  if  the  servitude  pre- 
dicted was  to  exist  chiefly  among  Ham's  posterity  through 
Canaan,  it  becomes  a  matter  comparatively  of  indifference, 
which  name  is  mentioned.  It  is  not  improbable,  however, 
that  Canaan  may  have  concurred  with  his  father  in  the  in- 
decent conduct  which  gave  rise  to  the  prophecy ;  and  it  is 
very  probable,  that  his  name  was  selected  with  the  view  of 
representing  to  the  Hebrews  the  condition  of  Canaan's  des- 
cendants, as  exposed  to  the  infliction  of  a  divine  punishment 
for  their  iniquities,  a  punishment  which  the  conduct  of  their 
ancestor  had  been  the  occasion  of  predicting.  A  satisfac- 
tory exegetical  examination  of  the  latter  part  of  this  pro- 
phecy is  given  by  Hengstenberg  in  his  Christology,  Vol.  I. 
p.  42  ss.  Keith's  Translation.  For  the  poetical  construction 
of  the  passage,  see  Lowth's  Lectures  on  the  sacred  poetry 
of  the  Hebrews,  Lect.  IV.  p.  60  of  Gregory's  Translation, 
Boston,  1815. 

Part  V.     Chap.  x.  1 — xi.  9. 

(47.)  The  fullest  and  most  learned  commentary  on  this 
tenth  chapter  is  to  be  found  in  the  last  three  books  of  Bo- 
chart's  Phaleg.  Other  authorities,  which  may  be  consulted 
with  advantage,  are  mentioned  by  Dathe  and  Rosenmiiller. 
See  also  Maurice's  ancient  history  of  Hindoostan,  Vol.  I. 
p.  444  s. — It  is  evident  that  several  of  the  names  here  oc- 
curring, are  names  of  nations  ;  in  some  cases  they  are 
patronymic  also,  in  others  merely  gentilitious.  Thus  Gomer, 
Madai,  Tiras,  Mizraim,  Canaan,  Sidon,  Elam,  Ashur,  and 
others,  (v.  2,  6,  15,  22,)  are  names  of  individuals  and  of 
nations.  Most  critics  consider  the  plurals  in  v.  13,  14,  and 
elsewhere,  as  referring  exclusively  to  cities  or  countries,  or 
to  their  inhabitants.  The  meaning  will  be,  that  the  Egyp- 
tians, expressed  by  the  word  Misraim,  founded  the  nations 
or  colonies  denoted   by  the  words  Ludim,  Anamim,  &C. 


CHAP.  X.  1— XI.  9.]  NOTES    TO    (SENESld.  226 

Thus  also  ill  the  sixteenth  and  following  verses,  the  Jebusitd, 
&c.  does  not  appear  to  designate  any  particular  indivi- 
dual, but  is  rather  to  be  taken  in  a  collective  sense  for 
the  people  respectively,  as  in  2  Sam.  v.  6.  "  And  the  king 
and  his  men  went  to  Jerusalem  unto  the  Jebusites,  the  inha- 
bitants of  the  land,"  where  the  Hebrew  is  in  the  singular, 
"f  ns^n    ntpi^   ^pn^^n-b^,  as  it  is  also  in  V.  8. 

Ver.  5,  d'jisn  '^*'.b^,  territories  of  the  Gentiles ;  properly^ 
inaritime  countries,  coasts.  The  word  is  sometimes  used 
for  distant  nations,  countries  lying  on  the  sea,  at  the  verge 
(as  it  were)  of  the  world.  In  our  English  version  it  is  al- 
ways translated  "  islands,"  except  in  Jer.  xlvii.  4,  where  it  is " 
rendered  "  countries."  In  Isa.  xlii.  15,  the  supposition  that 
"  islands"  are  meant,  is  so  improbable,  as  almost  to  involve 
an  absurdity. 

(48.)  The  historians  referred  to  identify  Nimrod  with 
IZohak  or  Dhohak,  whom  they  make  the  brother  instead  of 
the  son  of  Cush.  See  D'Herbelot's  Bibliotheque  Orientale, 
under  Dhohak,  p.  948,  fol.  Paris,  1697.  If  Nimrod's  name 
be  derived  from   1^)2,  37^,  to  rebel,  it  was  probably  not 

imposed  until  his  impious  and  overbearing  conduct  marked 
him  out  as  the  distinguished  rebel  against  the  divine  au- 
thority. Perizonius  conjectures  that  the  term  Nimrod,  which 
is  the  first  person  plural  of  the  future,  may  have  arisen 
from  his  frequent  and  vain-glorious  appeals  to  his  impious 
companions,  urging  them  to  rebellion  against  divine  authori- 
ty, in  which  he  would  employ  the  word  ^1l?25.  See 
his  Origines  Babylonicse,  p.  122.  It  may  indeed  denote  the 
temper  of  his  mind,  but  it  is  not  very  likely  that  he  gave  this 
utterance  to  such  a  feeling.  The  phrase  v.  9, "  a  mighty  hunter 
before  the  Lord,"  is  particularly  emphatic.  It  may  express,  not 
only  courage,  strength,  agility,  adroitness,  perseverance,  and 
*   29 


226  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  v. 

such  Other  properties  as  usually  enter  into  the  character  of 
a  good  hunter  ;  but  may  intimate,  that  these  qualifications 
were  such  as  would  bear  the  most  thorough  examination, 
they  were  possessed  by  him  in  the  highest  degree  ;  the 
Omniscient  himself  being  the  judge,  he  was  ,a  mighty  hunter. 
Or  else,  more  probably,  it  implies  the  boldness  and  impu- 
dence of  the  man,  as  it  is  said  of  the  men  of  Sodom,  that 
they  "were  sinners  before  the  Lord  exceedingly."  Gen.  xiii. 
13.  In  either  case,  it  will  imply,  that  even  the  presence  of 
Jehovah  was  no  restraint  on  Nimrod.  See  Bochart,  Lib. 
IV.  cap.  xii. 

In  very  ancient  periods  of  the  world,  when  large  dis- 
tricts of  country  were  but  partially  settled,  the   scattered 
inhabitants  were  sometimes  subjected  to  great  annoyance 
from  wild  beasts,  and  consequently  persons  who  exerted 
themselves  in  exterminating  such  animals,  were  regarded  as 
benefactors  of  mankind.     It  is  evident,  that  to  prosecute 
such  enterprises  with  most  success,  considerable  parties  of 
men    would    be   necessary,   conducted   doubtless    by   some 
leader  of  distinguished  talent  and  character.     It  is  easy  to 
infer  that  this  leader  might  acquire  popularity  and  attract 
multitudes  to  his  standard,  that  he  must  direct  the  under- 
taking, and  give  the  command,  and  thus  his  will  would  be- 
come the  law  of  the   rest.     In  the   event  of  any  difficulties 
or   dissensions    arising,    he    would    of   course    become    the 
umpire,  and  thereby  his  authority  would  be  strengthened 
and    enlarged.     In  the   distribution  of   the   skins   or  other 
spoil,  his  proportion  would  probably  be  the  largest.     As  the 
owners  of  property,  particularly  of  cattle,  were  especially 
interested   in  the  successful  issue  of  such  hunts,  it  is  most 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  would  encourage  the  en- 
terprising  captain   by   making   him    presents.     He   would 
therefore  be  in   a  condition  to  increase  his   popularity,  by 
giving  away  what  his  own  immediate  wants  did  not  require 


CHAP.  X.  1— XI.  9.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS. 


227 


him  to  keep.  Thus  his  circle  of  dependants  and  friends 
would  be  extended ;  and  perhaps  what  was  first  offered  as 
a  willing  present,  soon  came  to  be  demanded  as  a  rightful 
tribute.  It  is  easy  to  see  how,  in  this  way,  the  hunter  of 
beasts,  acquiring  irresistible  force  and  indomitable  hardihood 
and  courage  in  his  conflicts  with  tigers  and  lions,  might 
readily  raise  an  army,  and  become  the  tyrannical  oppressor 
of  men,  and  the  insolent  contemner  of  God.  And,  in  all 
probability,  this  is  the  history  of  the  rise  and  power  of  Nim- 
rod,  the  great  ancient  rebel. 

(49.)  For  the  authorities  on  which  this  interpretation  of 
the  names  of  the  cities  mentioned  in  v.  10  is  given,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  Rosenmiiller's  note. 

(50.)  Bochart  (ubi  sup.  p.  229,  230,)  contends,  that  'n^'a5V 
is  the  name  of  the  country  Assyria,  and  that  the  whole 
clause  relates  to  Nimrod,  and  ought  to  be  rendered  thus : 
'  he  went  out  of  that  land  into  Assyria,'  that  is,  he  invaded 
that  region,  took  possession  of  it,  and  built  Nineveh  and  the 
other  cities.  No  doubt  the  original  word  often  means  Assy- 
ria, and  the  Tl  local  is  not  necessary,  although,  to  avoid 
ambiguity,  its  use  would  have  been  highly  expedient.  No 
doubt,  too,  the  word  i^^^^  is  frequently  used  for  going  out  to 
war  or  battle  ;  but  this  proves  nothing,  for  it  is  very  often 
used  where  no  hostility  can  possibly  be  implied.  Nor  is 
there  much  force  in  what  is  further  alleged  by  Bochart ;  that 
any  notice  of  Ashur,  a  son  of  Shem,  whose  birth  is  men- 
tioned in  the  twenty-second  verse,  is  here  out  of  place,  as 
the  immediate  context  is  limited  to  an  account  of  Ham's 
descendants.  It  is  not  uncommon  with  the  sacred  writers 
to  introduce  some  circumstances  of  the  history  of  particular 
persons,  although  their  connexion  with  the  main  subject  of 
the  context  is  only  incidental.  We  have  an  illustration  of 
this  in  Gen.  xxviii.  6 — 9,  where  Esau's  marrying  an  addi^ 


228  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  v. 

tional  wife  is  mentioned  in  the  midst  of  a  continuous  narra- 
tive of  Jacob's  journey  to  Padan-Aram ;  and  another  in 
1  Ghron.  v.  1,2,  where  the  cause  of  Reuben's  being  deprived 
of  the  birth-right,  together  with  the  favors  bestowed  on 
Joseph  and  Judah,  are  merely  appendages  to  the  prominent 
topic.  If  now  the  character  of  Nimrod  were  such  as  scrip- 
ture and  eastern  history  allow  us  to  suppose,  it  is  easy  to 
see  why  a  man  of  character  and  independence,  feeling  him- 
self unable  to  cope  with  an  oppressive  despot,  should  leave 
his  country,  and  settle  where  he  might  exert  his  talents  and 
influence  without  control.  I  conclude,  therefore,  that  the 
common  translation,  which  coincides  with  most  of  the  an- 
cient versions,  is  to  be  preferred. 

RoLLiN,  in  his  ancient  History,  Vol.  II.  p.  181,  London, 
1795,  follows  Bpchart,  and  of  course  makes  Nimrod  the 
founder  of  the;  old  Assyrian  monarchy.  Hales  also,  in  his 
New  Analysis  of  Chronology,  adopts  the  same  view.  See 
Vol.  I.  p.  447,  and  Vol.  II.  p.  50.  On  the  other  hand,  Bryant, 
in  his  very  learned  and  curious,  though  often  fanciful.  Ana- 
lysis of  Ancient  Mythology,  defends  the  common  translation. 
Vol.  VI.  p.  192  ss.  3rd  edit.  Lond.  1807.  So  also  Schuck- 
ford,  in  his  Sacred  and  Profane  History  Connected,  Vol.  I. 
p.  161  ss.  Lond.  1819. — According  to  the  former  view,  the 
ancient  Babylonian  monarchy  was  the  commencement  of  the 
kingdom  of  Nimrod,  who,  having  conquered  Assyria,  built 
Nineveh,  calling  it  after  his  son  and  successor  Ninus,  who 
probably  enlarged  and  finished  it.  According  to  the  latter, 
the  ancient  Assyrian  empire  was  founded  by  Ashur,  and  was 
distinct  from  the  ancient  Babylonian,  until  Ninus,  successor 
to  Ashur,  subdued  the  Babylonian  and  other  neighboring 
people,  merging  them  in  the  Assyrian  empire. 

(51,  in  the  Analysis  erroneously  printed  50.)  "l^^""^!?^ 
y.  21^  is  translated  by  some  critics,  following  Rashi, '  phildren 


CHAP.  X.  1— XI.  9.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS*  229 

of  the  other  side,'  meaning  the  other  side  of  the  Euphrates ; 
and  thus  Eber  will  be  represented  as  the  ancestor  of 
those  people,  (that  is,  of  the  larger  proportion  of  them,) 
who  lived  on  the  east  of  that  river.  But  the  ellipsis  of  a 
word  to  express  the  river  is  harsh  and  unnatural.  Parkhurst 
translates  it, "  children  of  passage  or  pilgrimage,"  and  thinks  it 
refers  to  their  "  itinerant"  character, "  passing  from  one  place 
to  another,  until  their  settlement  in  Canaan,  and  confessing 
themselves  pilgrims  upon  earth."  See  his  Hebrew  Lexicon 
under  ^'2'$  I.,  or  Greek  Lex.  in  'E/3^aio?.  He  follows  Julius 
Bate,  in  his  Critica  Hebrsea,  or  Hebrew-English  Dictionary. 
The  principal  reason  for  either  of  these  versions  is  found  in 
.  an  objection  urged  against  that  usually  received,  namely,  that 
Shem  "  was  no  more  the  father  of  the  children  of  his  greats 
grand-son  Eber,  than  of  his  other  descendants."  But  this 
objection  is  removed  by  explaining  the  phrase,  "  children" 
(or  sons)  "  of  Eber,"  as  equivalent  to  '  Hebrews,'  whose  an- 
cestor is  here  said  to  be  Shem,  the  subject  of  a  divine  bene- 
diction.    See  ix.  26. 

Our  English  translation  makes  Japheth  "  the  elder"  of  the 
two  brothers  ;  but  the  probability  is,  that  the  clause  ought  to 
be  rendered,  "  the  elder  brother  of  Japheth."  Dathe,  who 
at  first  adopted  the  former  opinion,  afterwards  acknowledges 
himself  mistaken,  and  defends  the  latter.  So  also  Rosen- 
miiller.  Both  refer  to  an  able  essay  relating  to  this  subject 
by  John  F.  Schelling,  in  the  Repertorium  fiir  Biblische  und 
Morgenlandische  Litteratur,  Vol.  XVII.  p.  1 — 25.  There 
5eems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  usual 
construction,  which  places  the  eldest  son  first,  Patrick  re- 
marks that  the  article  prefixed  to  blH^  elder, "  plainly  directs 
us  to  refer  the  word  to  him  who  was  last  spoken  of,  namely, 
Japheth."  By  what  usage  of  the  Hebrew  language,  this 
plain  direction  is  supported,  it  were  difficult  to  say.  Judg.  i. 
J 3,  and  ix.  5,  are  evident  instances  of  the  contrary,  for  in 


230  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  v. 

both  cases  ItOj^Jl  plainly  refers  to  the  former  noun,  and 
Professor  Bush,  who  cites  these  two  places,  is  undoubtedly 
right  in  saying  that  "  had  a  uniform  mode  of  rendering  been 
pursued,  the  words  before  us  would  no  doubt  have  been 
translated,  '  Shem,  the  elder  brother  of  Japheth.'  "  Still,  he 
considers  the  word  b1l5»l  as  pointing  not  to  seniority  of 
age,  but  to  priority  in  honor  ;"  because  "  the  evidence  of 
Japheth's  being  the  eldest  of  the  three  sons  of  Noah  is  too 
strong  to  be  set  aside."  The  only  evidence  alleged  by  him 
is  what  I  am  about  to  state  from  Patrick,  which,  indeed,  is 
somewhat  plausible,  and  is  considered  by  that  distinguished 
commentator  as  a  "  plain  proof"  that  Japheth  was  the  eldest 
son  of  his  father.  On  comparing  v.  32,  vii.  11,  and  xi.  10,  ■ 
it  is  argued,  that  Noah  was  five  hundred  years  old  when  the 
eldest  of  his  three  sons  was  born,  and  that  he  was  five  hun- 
dred and  two  on  the  birth  of  Shem,  because  he  was  six 
hundred  when  he  entered  into  the  ark,  two  years  after  which 
Shem  was  one  hundred,  who  must  consequently  have  been 
two  years  younger  than  his  brother  Japheth.  But,  how  little 
dependence  is  to  be  placed  on  this  argument  will  be  evident 
to  any  one,  who  considers  that  the  scripture  very  frequently 
uses  round  numbers,  omitting  fractional  parts.  And  such 
appears  to  be  the  usage  in  v.  32,  as  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
improbable  that  Noah  became  the  father  of  three  sons  in 
the  same  year. 

In  the  genealogical  list  contained  in  the  fifth  chapter,  one 
son  only  of  each  patriarch  is  introduced.  The  three  sons  of 
Noah  are  doubtless  mentioned,  because  of  the  important 
position  which  they  occupy  in  the  subsequent  narrative. 

The  repetition  of  circumstances  already  mentioned,  how- 
ever contrary  to  good  usage  among  occidental  authors,  is 
very  common  not  only  with  the  Hebrew  writers,  but  also 
with  the  Arabian.  See  Drechsler,  ubi  sup.  p.  98,  99,  and 
£wald's  Komposition  der  Genesis,  p.  122  ss.  170,  171.    This 


CHAP.  X.  1— XI.  9.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  231 

remark  will  account  for  the  frequency  of  such  notices  as 
V.  32,  vi.  10.  vii.  13,  ix.  18.  Comp.  also  xi.  10—18,  with  x.  22, 
24,  25,  vi.  6,  with  7,  and  this  with  11,  12,  13.  To  introduce  a 
theory  of  various  original  documents,  in  the  hope  of  explain- 
ing such  phenomena,  would  be  preposterous. 

(52.)  As  the  country  in  which  the  immediate  descendants 
of  Noah  lived,  could  not  have  been  remote  from  the  place  in 
which  the  ark  rested,  the  wanderers  referred  to  must  have 
come  from  the  north,  in  order  to  arrive  at  the  plains  of 
Babylonia.  The  opinion  of  Shuckford,  Vol.  I.  p.  88  ss., 
that  the  ark  had  floated  over  to  the  confines  of  China,  that 
Noah  is  identical  with  Fohi,  and  that  this  party  had  come 
literally  from  the  extreme  east,  is  encumbered  by  difficulties, 
not  the  least  of  which  is  the  impracticability  of  traversing 
so  extensive  a  region  of  country  at  so  early  a  period  after 
the  flood.  Bochart  (Lib.  i.  cap.  vii.  p.  31,;  conjectures  that 
the  sacred  writer  follows  the  usage  of  the  Assyrians,  and 
applies  the  term  '  east'  to  all  the  region  lying  beyond  the 
Tigris,  without  particular  reference  to  its  geographical  posi- 
tion. That  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  river  would  of  course 
be  named  the  west.  This  supposition  is  now  generally 
adopted  by  interpreters,  and  it  frees  the  text  from  embar- 
rassment. 

(53.)  Le  Clerc  conjectures  that  the  true  reading  in  v.  4,  is 
Di*  instead  of  Stp,  and  that  it  expresses  the  idea  of  a  me- 
tropolis. But  any  alteration  of  the  text  is  unnecessary  and 
without  authority.  Some  have  supposed  dtp  to  mean  a 
conspicuous  sign,  raised  with  a  view  to  guide  shepherds. 
Dathe  adopts  this  view.  To  the  ordinary  interpretation  he 
objects,  that  reputation  with  posterity  would  not  prevent  the 
dispersion  of  these  people.  But  the  text  does  not  limit  the- 
wished-for  renown  to  posterity  ;  and  the  distinguished  char- 
acter and  fame  which  they  hoped   to  establish  by  building- 


232  ,     NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  v, 

the  city  and  tower,  might  reasonably  be  expected  to  attract 
others  to  their  community,  and  to  strengthen  the  bonds  of 
mutual  union. — It  has  been  said,  that  the  very  great  elevation 
of  the  tower  was  designed  for  astronomical  observations  ; 
but  this  is  mere  conjecture,  hardly  consistent  with  the  state 
of  the  people  referred  to,  and  the  very  early  period  of  their 
existence.  Besides  a  mountainous  region  would  seem  better 
adapted  to  such  a  purpose  than  a  plain. 

(54.)  The  first  verse  literally  translated  runs  thus :  '  and 
the  whole  earth  was  lip  one  and  words  one.'  The  former 
term  lip,  tlS'p,  is  sometinies  used  by  a  metonymy  for  lan- 
guage, as  in  Isa.  xix.  18  :  "In  that  day  shall  five  cities  in  the 
land  of  Canaan  speak  the  language  of  Canaan.   '15'D3  iiSp"  ; 

and  xxxiii.  19:  "a  people  of  deeper  speech,  il3ti),  than  thou 
canst  perceive,"  meaning  probably,  a  foreign,  unknown  dia- 
lect.— But  it  is  also  employed  in  the  sense  of  speech,  dis- 
course, in  reference  to  its  nahire  and  character,  without  regard 
to  its  linguistic  peculiarities  ;  as  in  Prov.  xiv.  7  :  "  Go  from 
the  presence  of  a  foolish  man,  when  thou  perceivest  not  in 
him  the  lips  of  knowledge,  JlS^'l^'^ilS'©,"  that  is, 'wise  and 
sensible  discourse.'  Kindred  words,  such  as  mouth  and 
tongue,  are  also  used  in  this  latter  sense.  In  1  Kings  xxii. 
13,  and  2  Chron.  xviii.  12,  we  find  the  very  similar  phrase 
'  one  mouth,'  THiJ^  HS,  denoting  unanimity,  "with  one  ac- 
cord," as  the  same  Hebrew  expression  is  well  rendered  in 
our  version  of  Josh.  ix.  2,  in  accordance  with  the  Septuagint 
ajxa  *avr£fj  and  the  Vulgate,  uno  animo :  "  They  gathered 
themselves  together  to  fight  with  Joshua  and  with  Israel,  with 
one  accord,  nrj!^  H^."  And  in  Zeph.  iii.  9,  the  very  word 
'  lip,'  nsp,  is  used  in  Connexion  with  expressions  of  unani- 
mity. "  For  then  will  I  turn  to  the  people  a  pure  language, 
Vr\T\1t  riSt2)j  that  they  may  all  call  upon  the  name  of  the 


CHAP.  X.  1— XI.  9.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  233 

Lord,  to  serve  him  with  one  consent.  So  also  in  Ps.  Iv.  10, 
"  divide  their  tongues,''  CiltDp,  is  equivalent  to, '  spread  eon- 
fusion  among  them  and  ruin  their  counsels.'  The  same 
figurative  use  of  such  words  is  common  in  all  languages. 
Hence  Virgil  says,  unoque  omnes  eadem  ore  fremebant. 
Mn.  xi.  132. — Vitringa,  in  his  dissertation  on  the  confusion 
of  languages,  which  may  be  found  in  his  Observationes 
Sacraj,  (Lib.  I.  cap.  i — ix.  p.  1 — 124,  particularly  cap.  ix. 
p.  109  ss.)  supposes,  that  the  whole  of  this  verse  merely  ex- 
presses the  idea  of  unity  of  mind  respecting  the  intended 
object,  and  by  the  conlusion  afterwards  related,  he  under- 
stands the  dissensions  which  arose  and  led  to  the  dispersion. 
It  would  seem  that  the  bare  fact  of  confounding  the  one 
original  language,  thereby  introducing  several  distinct  dia- 
lects, would  not  be  necessarily  attended  by  an  abandonment 
of  the  scheme  and  the  dispersion  of  its  projectors.  The 
surprise  and  consternation  which  would  be  occasioned,  might 
gradually  yield,  as  the  alarmed  builders  ascertained  that 
some  of  their  number  could  still  hold  intercourse  with  others; 
and  thus  the  work  might  advance,  though  slowly  and  not 
without  its  peculiar  difficulties.  The  possibility  of  this, 
however,  by  no  means  encourages  a  belief  that  such  would 
be  the  result.  Without  vastly  more  of  philosophy  than  falls 
to  the  lot  of  bodies  of  men  in  any  age,  a  confusion  of  lan- 
guage would  be  likely  to  lead  to  a  want  of  harmony,  quite 
incompatible  with  a  successful  termination  of  such  an  en- 
terprise as  that  under  consideration.  And  that  the  text  does 
assert  a  confusion  of  language  and  not  merely  of  design, 
(however  true  it  may  be  that  this  did  take  place  as  a  conse- 
quence of  the  other,)  is  plain  from  the  general  character  of 
the  expressions  in  the  first  and  ninth  verses,  where  the  unity 
and  confusion  spoken  of  are  represented  as  co-extensive 
with  the  whole  habitable  earth.  The  context  affords  no 
ground  whatever  for- limiting  their  application.  To  which 
30 


234  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [paht  v. 

may  be  added  the  remark  of  Perizonius  quoted  by  Rosen- 
miiller,  that,  inasmuch  as  the  sacred  writer  had  in  tlie  pre- 
vious chapter  frequently  mentioned  the  distribution  of  Noah's 
posterity,  according  to  their  famiHes,  countries,  and  lan- 
guages, intending  now  to  explain  the  occasion  of  such  a 
distribution,  he  premises  the  very  natural  observation,  that 
before  this  event  mankind  all  used  one  common  tongue. 

How  many  languages  were  formed  in  consequence  of  the 
confusion  here  related,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  The  Jewish 
notion  of  seventy,  and  that  of  seventy-two  maintained  by 
many  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  are  alike  unsupported 
by  any  solid  argument.  The  reader  will  find  all  that  is 
necessary  to  know  on  this  subject  in  Bochart's  Phaleg,  Lib.  L 
cap.  XV.,  de  confusione  linguarum. 

The  dispersion  of  these  builders  in  consequence  of  the 
confusion  of  the  one  original  tongue,  would  necessarily  lead 
to  a  still  wider  diversity  of  languages,  which  is  the  ordinary 
result  of  diversity  of  climate,  condition,  and  association. 
But  to  ascribe  all  varieties  of  human  speech  to  these  and 
other  natural  causes,  is  inconsistent  with  the  plain  declara- 
tion of  the  inspired  narrative,  which  not  only  asserts  a  con- 
fusion of  language,  but  declares  it  to  have  been  etiected  on 
this  particular  occasion,  and  in  the  particular  place  here 
specified.  The  seventh  and  ninth  verses  clearly  prove  this 
point.  Tlic  former  expresses  the  divine  determination  to 
produce  the  confusion  "  there,''  and  the  latter  informs  us, 
that  "  the  Lord  did  there"  accomplish  it.  The  dispersion  is 
evidently  the  result  of  this  confusion,  not  this  contusion  the 
result  of  the  dispersion  simply. 

Before  concluding  this  note.  I  cannot  help  noting  the 
contemptuous  and  indecent  manner  in  which  Bei'gcr,  in  the 
work  before  referred  to.  speaks  of  this  narrative.  Althounh 
he  considers  the  whole  idea  of  a  contusion  of  language  as  a 
chimerical  notion,  philosophically  speaking  an  impossibility, 


CHAP.  X.  i— XI.  9.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  235 

he  feels  no  difficulty  in  allowing  that  such  a  confusion  is 
here  asserted  to  have  taken  place.  "  The  old  world  had  no 
hesitation  in  extending  their  representations  of  the  power  of 
God  beyond  the  bounds  of  absolute  possibility.  If  it  were 
required  to  recall  the  past  day,  to  make  a  real  transaction 
not  to  have  been  done,  or  to  exhibit  a  four-cornered  circle, 
they  would  not  have  scrupled  to  ascribe  this  to  the  divinity;" 
Vol.  I.  p.  114.  Like  many  other  representations  of  this 
writer,  this  statement  and  the  application  which  he  makes  of 
it  are  characterized  by  a  flippancy  which  might  well  enough 
become  an  infidel  sneercr,  but  is  very  little  consistent  with 
the  gravity  of  a  philosophical  inquirer,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
seriousness  required  of  one  who  professes  to  write  an  Intro- 
duction, pointing  out  the  moral  and  practical  bearing  of  the 
Old  Testament.  What  shall  be  said  of  the  candor  or  dis- 
crimination of  an  author,  who  represents  Abraham  as  found- 
ing a  system,  injurious  to  the  intellectual  cultivation  of  his 
posterity,  and  making  their  conversion  to  Christianity  ex- 
tremely difficult!  p.  139. 

(55.)  The  derivation  of  Babel  (whence  Babylon.)  from 
'b'b'2  to  confound,  is  plainly  asserted  in  the  ninth  verse. 
There  appears  to  be  an  elision  of  a  b,  b^^  being  put  for 

bS^S,  like  f-^o^^  gogultho  for  1  Alol^^  golgultho.  See 
Bochart,  Lib.  I.  cap.  xv.  ad  fin.  p.  Gl.  Gesenius  compares  the 
form  of  the  w^ord  with  riSpltO  for  HSiipSp. — Eusebius,  in 
his  Evangelical  Preparation,  has  preserved  fragments  re- 
lating to  the  city  and  tower,  collected  from  the  works  of 
Abydenus  and  Eupolemus.  See  Lib.  IX.  cap.  xiv.  xvii.  p.  416, 
418,  edit.  Colon.  1688.  They  are  inserted  by  Rosenmiiller  at 
the  end  of  his  note  on  v.  9,  and,  along  with  other  authorities, 
by  Bochart,  cap.  xiii. 


236 


NOTES    TO    GENESIS, 


[part  VI. 


Part  VI.     Chap.  xi.  10—26. 

(56.)  General  view  of  the  discrepancies  of  the  Hebrew, 
Samaritan,  and  Septuagint  chronology,  and  also  that  of 
Josephus,  until  tlje  birth  of  Abraham,  from  Jahn's  Hebrew 
Bible,  p,  25. 


Before  Paterni 

ty- 

After  Paternity.  ' 

Tctal. 

Heb. 
100 

35 

30 
34 

30 
32 

30 
29 

70 

100 
135 

130 
134 

130 
132 

130 
79 

70 

Sepi 

100 
135 

130 
130 
134 

130 
132 
133 

179 

79 

170 

Jos. 
112 
135 

130 
134 

130 
130 
132 
120 

70 

Heb. 
500 
403 

403 
430 

209 
207 

Sam. 
500 
303 

303 

270 

109 
107 

Sept. 
50C 

40C 
43C 

33C 

330 

270 
370 

209 

207 

Shcm 

600 

Arphaxad 

438 

Cainan 

Salah 

433 

464 

Eber 

Phaleg 

Reu 

Serug 

200 
119 

100 
69 

200 

125 

129 

Nahor 

Terah 

Between  the  names  of  Arphaxad  and  Salah,  the  Septua-f 
gint  introduces  that  of  Cainan.  But  this  is  no  doubt  an  in- 
terpolation. It  is  unsupported  by  any  other  ancient  version, 
and  is  not  found  in  the  Hebrew  text.  The  internal  evidence 
is  also  against  it,  for  the  age  of  this  supposititious  Cainan  is  the 
same  with  that  of  Salah,  both  before  and  after  their  paternity 


CHAP.  XI.  10—26.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  237 

is  mentioned ;  each  is  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  before, 
and  each  lives  three  hundred  and  thirty  after,  which  is  an 
exceedingly  improbable  coincidence.  That  St.  Luke  men- 
tions Cainan  in  iii.  36,  only  shows  that  his  genealogical  list 
followed  the  Septuagint.  See  Planck's  Introduction  to 
Sacred  Philology  and  Interpretation,  translated  from  the  ori- 
ghial  German,  and  enlarged  with  notes,  by  the  author  of  this 
work,  Note,^XLI.  p.  278,  279.  Bochart,  however,  denies 
this,  and  takes  some  pains  to  sustain  the  conjecture  of  Cor- 
nelius A  Lapide,  that  the  Septuagint  was  altered  in  order  to 
accommodate  it  to  the  copies  of  the  Gospel,  into  which  he 
thinks  the  error  had  first  crept.  See  his  learned  examina- 
tion of  the  subject.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xiii.  p.  89 — 91.  The  ad- 
mission of  this  principle  would  involve  the  critic  in  difficulties 
arising  out  of  other  similar  discrepancies. 

Part  VII.     Chap.  xr.  27— xxv.  11. 

(57.)  In  V.  31,  the  English  translation  is,  "and  they  went 
forth  with  them."  This  is  the  true  sense  of  the  Hebrew." 
There  is  no  necessity,  with  Dathe,  to  follow  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  and  the  Syriac,  Septuagint,  and  Vulgate  ver- 
sions, all  of  which  read  in  the  singular,  *  he  went  out  with 
them,'  or,  '  he  brought  them  out.'  The  Chaldee  Targum 
agrees  with  the  Hebrew  text.  The  meaning  may  be,  that 
Terah  and  Abraham  went  with  Lot  and  Sarah,  agreeably 
to  the  opinion  of  Rashi,  which  is  approved  by  Rosenmiiller. 
Or,  it  may  intimate  that  other  inhabitants  of  Ur  accompanied 
the  party  here  named.  May  it  not  be  true  that  Nahor  went 
with  his  brother  Abram?  The  narrative  does  not  indeed 
expressly  mention  such  removal,  and  yet  we  find  that  Abra- 
ham's servant,  who  is  sent  to  Mesopotamia  to  procure  a  wife 
for  Isaac,  goes  "  to  the  city  of  Nahor,"  (xxiv.  1 0,)  the  residence 
of  Rebecca,  (v.  15,)  and  of  course  of  her  brother  Laban, 


23S  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [pap.T  vii. 

But  Laban's  dwelling-place  was  Haran,  as  is  evident  from 
xxvii.  43,  xxviii.  10,  xxix.  4.  I  cunclude,  therefore,  that  this 
branch  of  the  patriarchal  family  had  removed  from  Ur  to 
Haran ;  and  I  am  not  aware  -of  any  scriptural  statement 
which  forbids  the  supposition,  that  the  removal  was  contem- 
poraneous with  that  of  Abraham. 

(58.)  According  to  the  Hebrew  text,  Terah  lived  two 
hundred  and  five  years,  and  this  reading  is  supported  by  all 
the  ancient  versions.  But  the  Samaritan  text  reads  one 
hundred  and  forty-five.  And  this  seems  to  be  preferable :  for, 
by  comparing  Gen.  xi.  26,  with  xii.  4,  it  appears,  that  if  Abra- 
ham were  the  eldest  son,  he  left  Haran  one  hundred  and 
forty-five  years  after  his  father's  birth.  If  Terah  lived 
two  hundred  and  five  years,  he  must  have  survived  this  re- 
moval sixty  years.  In  this  case  we  must  suppose  him  to 
have  been  left  in  Haran,  as  the  text  tells  us  he  died  there. 
But  such  a  supposition  is  wholly  incredible,  and  is  expressly 
contradicted  by  St.  Stephen  in  Acts  vii.  4,  who  states,  that 
Abraham's  removal  was  subsequently  to  his  father's  decease ; 
and  it  is  evident  that  it  must  have  taken  place  shortly  after 
that  event.  If  we  adopt  the  Samaritan  reading,  all  is  clear 
and  probable.  It  is  defended  by  Bochart,  Vol.  I.  p.  863, 
864,  who  conjectures,  that  the  error  in  the  Hebrew  may 
have  arisen  from  the  similarity  of  the  letters  p  (100),  and  )2 
(40),  particularly  as,  in  some  manuscripts,  the  lower  part  of 
the  former  is  cut  off.  If  there  be  an  error,  it  must  have 
arisen  at  a  very  early  period.  This  preference  of  the  Sa- 
maritan text  would  indeed  be  unnecessary,  if  we  could  ad- 
mit, with  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  that  Abram  was  the  youngest 
son,  born  in  his  father's  one  hundred  and  fortieth  year.  But 
this  position  is  untenable,  as  it  was  the  ordinary  practice  to 
mention  the  eldest  son  first.  See  note  (51.)  Besides, 
from  xvii.  17,  it  appears  that  Abraham  regarded  it  as  a  very 
extraordinary  circumstance,  that  a  person  who  had  arrived 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]         NOTES    TO    GENESIS. 


239 


at  the  atre  of  one  hundred  sliould  become  a  parent,  which  is 
altogether  irreconcilable  with  the  opinion  that  his  father  was 
one  hundred  and  forty  at  the  time  of  his  birth.  A  com- 
parison of  Rom.  iv.  19,  and  Hcb.  xi.  11,  12,  will  confirm 
this  argument. 

(59.)  The  English  version  of  the  phrase  HlrT^^  "l/giS'^l 
"now  the  Lord  had  said,"  is  remarkable.  It  is  usually  ren- 
dered, 'and  the  Lord  said.'  The  translators  were  probably 
led  to  prefer  the  pluperfect  tense,  from  the  impression  that 
this  is  the  same  call  as  that  mentioned  in  Acts  vii.  2,  3,  where 
the  language  agrees.  This  is  tlie  view  of  Rosenmiiller,  who 
considei's  the  previous  notice  of  Terah's  death  as  prolepti- 
cal.  But  the  connexion  of  the  narrative  makes  it  plain,  that 
the  command  here  given  relates  to  the  departure  from  lla- 
ran.  The  first  verse  contains  this  command  ;  in  the  second 
and  third  the  promise  is  made;  the  fourth  and  fifth  mention 
the  departure  itself,  a  departure  from  Haran,  and  in  com- 
pliance with  the  divine  direction.  That  St.  Stephen  has 
employed  the  same  language  to  express  the  original  call 
from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  only  proves  its  applicability  to 
either.  If  it  be  objected,  that  the  terms,  "  from  thy  kindred 
and  i'rom  thy  father's  house,"  would  be  inapplicable  after  his 
father's  death,  it  is  easy  to  reply,  that  they  are  at  least  as 
much  so  after  as  before,  on  the  supposition  of  his  father's 
accoaipanying  him.  Rosenmullcr,  indeed,  objects  to  Lo 
Clerc,  who  understands  Haran  by  the  expression  "  thy 
country,"  that  with  the  Hebrews  the  land  of  any  one  means 
his  native  country,  wiiich  in  this  case  was  of  course  Chal- 
dea.  No  doubt  it  ordinarily  does,  as  it  does  also  in  all  lan- 
guages. But  any  place  in  which  a  person  resides  for  a 
considerable  time,  is  said  to  be  his  country,  as  in  Matt.  ix.  1, 
Capernaum  is  called  our  Lord's  own  city.  Comp.  iv.  13. 
Thus  too  Virgil,  JEncld  III.  297,  speaks  of  Andromache's 


240  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vu. 

having  married  a  husband  of  her  country  in  the  Trojan 
prince  Helenus,  although  Troy  was  only  her  residence, 
her  native  place  being  Thebes.  Other  examples  might  easily 
be  adduced.  The  terms  employed  in  the  passage  under 
consideration  seem  intended  to  express  the  complete  dissolu- 
tion of  all  connexion  with  the  land  in  which  Abram  dwelt, 
entire  abandonment  of  all  his  local  associations,  with  the 
view  of  forming  others  wholly  different.  It  is  highly  pro- 
bable, that  the  original  command  of  God  to  Abram  so  par- 
ticularly mentioned  by  St.  Stephen,  was  repeated  to  him  in 
Haran  very  soon  after  the  dissolution  of  his  father. 

(60.)  This  promise  is  several  times  repeated.  See  xviii. 
18,  xxii.  18,  xxvi.  4,  and  xxviii.  14.  In  the  first  and  last  in- 
stances, as  also  in  the  text,  the  Niphal  conjugation  is  used  ; 
in  the  other  two  the  Hithpael.  The  result  however  is  the 
same,  the  former  being  taken  in  its  ordinary  passive  sense, 
and  the  latter  retaining  its  usual  reflexive  meaning :  '  shall 
consider  themselves  blessed,  shall  congratulate  themselves.' 
The  gloss  of  Rashi,  which  Le  Clerc  has  adopted,  is  this : 
*  by  thee  all  nations  shall  bless.'  But,  as  Rosenmiiller  re- 
marks, this  would  require  the  Hithpael,  as  in  Deut.  xxix.  18, 
(19,)  "  tjljlnn,  he  shall  bless  himself  in  his  heart."  Besides, 
it  is  irreconcilable  with  the  phraseology  "  through  thy  seed," 
which  is  used  in  three  of  the  five  instances.  This  is  ex- 
planatory of  the  other  phrase  "  through  thee."  Both  relate 
to  Abram's  spiritual  progeny,  and  principally  to  his  most 
distinguished  descendant,  Christ.  See  the  application  of 
this  promise.  Gal.  iii.  8,  9,  14,  16,  29,  Acts  iii.  25,  26.  On 
this  prophecy,  compare  Hengstenberg,  ubi  sup.  p.  46  ss. 

(61.)  The  remark  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  verse: 
"  and  the  Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite  dwelled  then  in  the 
land,"  has  been  supposed  to  be  an  interpolation.     But  evi- 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  24l 

dently  without  any  ground.  Its  external  authority  is  not 
disputed,  and  the  internal  evidence  in  its  favor  is  strong.  No 
remark  could  have  been  more  apposite,  as  the  vicinity  of 
these  people,  who  could  not  have  been  friendly  to  the  new 
comers,  must  have  made  intestine  divisions  particularly  dan* 
gerous.  Besides,  it  intimates  to  the  reader,  that  the  level 
pasture  grounds  being  already  considerably  occupied  by  the 
Perizzites  (comp.  Gesenius  under  the  words  ''T'13  and  ''^.1.3, 
and  Hengstenberg's  Authentic  des  Pentateuches,  II.  p.  186,) 
the  remaining  portions  Were  insufficient  for  two  such  com- 
panies as  those  of  Lot  and  Abraham.  Here  it  may  be  Well 
to  remark,  that  the  same  statement,  which  the  sacred  author 
has  also  made  in  xii.  6,  is  undoubtedly  genuine  ;  for  as  the 
last  mentioned  writer  has  observed,  p.  185,  it  is  in  close 
connexion  with  the  promise  contained  in  the  seventh  verse, 
and  illustrates  the  patriarch's  faith,  wdio  believed  that 
God  would  give  that  land  to  his  posterity,  although  the 
Canaanite  was  then  its  occupant. 

The  last  clause  of  the  tenth  verse,  "  as  thou  comest  unto 
Zoar,"  is  connected  with  the  former  part,  the  words,  "before 
the  Lord  destroyed  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  even  as  the  garden 
of  the  Lord,  like  the  land  of  Egypt,"  being  parenthetical.  This 
construction  has  been  overlooked  by  the  Syriac  translator, 
who  has  taken  it  in  immediate  connexion  with  "  the  land  of 
Egypt,"  and  read  Zoan.  All  the  other  ancient  versions 
agree  with  the  Hebrew.  The  comparison  with  "  the  garden 
of  Eden,"  occurs  also  in  Joel  ii.  3. 

Some  writers  have  advanced  the  opinion,  that,  before  the 
destruction  of  Sodom  and  its  sister  cities,  and  the  consequent 
formation  of  the  Dead  Sea,  the  river  Jordan  pursued  a  south- 
erly course  along  the  desert,  and  found  its  way  into  the  eastern 
branch  of  the  Red  Sea.  Burckhardt,  who  travelled  this  route 
to  Egypt,  gives  a  description  of  the  ground,  which  coincides 
3J 


242  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [pAET  vii. 

exactly  with  such  a  supposition.     The  reader  will  doubtless 
wish  to  see  the  statement  of  this  distinguished  traveller. 

"  The  valley  of  the  Ghor,  which  has  a  rapid  slope  south- 
ward, from  the  lake  of  Tiberias  to  the  Dead  Sea,  appears  to 
continue  descending  from  the  southern  extremity  of  the  latter 
as  far  as  the  Red  Sea,  for  the  mountains  on  the  east  of  it 
appear  to  increase  in  height  the  farther  we  proceed  south- 
ward, while  the  upper  plain  apparently  continues  upon  the 
same  level.  This  plain  terminates  to  the  south  near  Akaba, 
on  the  Syrian  Hadj  [pilgrim]  route,  by  a  steep  rocky  des- 
cent, at  the  bottom  of  which  begins  the  desert  of  Nedjed, 
covered,  for  the  greater  part,  wath  flints.  The  same  des- 
cent, or  cliff,  continues  westward  towards  Akaba  on  the 
Egyptian  Hadj  road,  when  it  joins  the  Djebel  Hesma,  (a 
prolongation  of  Shera,)  about  eight  hours  to  the  north  of 
the  Red  Sea." 

"  The  Wady  Gharendal  empties  itself  into  the  valley  El 
Araba,  in  whose  sands  its  waters  are  lost.  This  valley  is  a 
continuation  of  the  Ghor,  which  may  be  said  to  extend  from 
the  Red  Sea  to  the  sources  of  the  Jordan.  The  valley  of 
that  river  widens  about  Jericho,  and  its  inclosing  hills  are 
united  to  a  chain  of  mountains  which  open  and  enclose  the 
Dead  Sea.  At  the  southern  extremity  of  the  sea,  they  again 
approach,  and  leave  between  them  a  valley  similar  to  the 
northern  Ghor  in  shape,  but  which  the  want  of  water  makes 
a  desert,  while  the  Jordan  and  its  numerous  tributary  streams 
render  the  other  a  fertile  plain. — The  general  direction  of 
the  southern  Ghor  is  parallel  to  the  road  which  I  took  in 
coming  from  Khanzyre  to  Wady  Mousa.  At  the  point 
where  we  crossed  it  near  Gharendal,  its  direction  was  from 
N.N. E.  to  S. S.W.  From  Gharendal  it  extends  southward 
for  fifteen  or  twenty  hours,  till  it  joins  the  sandy  plain  which 
separates  the  mountains  of  Hesma  from  the  eastern  branch 
of  the  Red  Sea.     It  continues  to  bear  the  appellation  of  El 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  243 

Ghor  as  far  as  the  latitude  of  Beszeyra,  to  the  south  of 
which  place,  as  the  Arabs  informed  me,  it  is  interrupted  for 
a  short  space  by  rocky  ground  and  wadys,  and  takes  the 
name  of  Araba,  which  it  retains  till  its  termination  near  the 
Red  Sea."  Travels  in  Syria  and  the  Holy  Land,  by  the 
late  John  Lewis  Burckhardt.  London,  4to.  1822,  p.  435,  and 

441,  442. 

Professor  Robinson,  however,  whose  views  on  geographi- 
cal points  connected  with  Palestine  and  Arabia  are  entitled 
to  the  very  highest  respect,  both  on  account  of  his  general 
accuracy  and  thoroughness  of  investigation,  and  of  his  hav- 
ing examined  the  country  himself,  in  company  with  a  Reve- 
rend friend  and  missionary,  declares  this  opinion  to  be  un- 
tenable. His  views  may  be  seen  in  part  in  a  letter  addressed 
to  the  editor  of  the  Biblical  Repository,  which  appeared  in 
the  number  for  January,  1840,  p.  24  ss.  It  is  presumed 
that  his  work  on  the  Geography  of  Palestine,  the  publication 
of  which  may  soon  be  expected,  will  contain  further  dis- 
closures on  this  subject. 

(62.)  Hebron  is  said  to  have  been  in  the  plain,  or  rather, 
among  the  oaks,  (^ibi^,)  of  Mamre,  the  Amorite.  See  xiv.  13. 

It  would  appear  from  Judges  i.  10,  that  before  the  age  of 
the  author  of  that  book,  the  name  of  Hebron  was  Kirjath- 
arba.  Hence  it  has  been  argued,  that  the  word  in  Genesis 
is  either  an  interpolation,  or  that  some  editor,  posterior  to 
the  time  of  the  author,  substituted  it  in  place  of  the  original 
word,  which  in  his  day  had  become  obsolete.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  Hebron  may  have  been  the  original  name  of  the  place, 
and  Kirjath-arba  a  subsequent  appellation,  which,  after  the 
conquest  of  Canaan,  gave  place  to  the  former.  It  would 
seem  from  Gen.  xxiii.  2,  that  when  Moses  wrote  this  part  of 
the  Pentateuch,  both  names  were  occasionally  used:  "Sarah 
died  in  Kirjath-Arba,  the  same  is  Hebron  in  the  land  of 


§44  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [PART  vil. 

Canaan."  It  must  not  be  assumed  from  this  place,  that 
Kirjath-Arba  was  the  more  an';ient  appellation.  As  Arr 
ba  was  a  distinguished  man  among  the  Anakim,  (Josh.  xiv. 
15,)  a  gigantic  race  of  people  very  distinguished  in  tiie  time 
of  Moses  and  Joshua,  but  not  mentioned  in  the  patriarchal 
history,  it  is  probable  that  Hebron,  a  very  ancient  city, 
(Num.  xiii.  22,)  was  rebuilt  or  fortified  or  embellished  by 
this  person,  and  hence  became  designated  by  his  name, 
the  city  (JTIinP)  of  Arba.  That  a  city  may  for  a  short  time 
partially  lose  its  most  ancient  name,  and  afterwards  regain 
it,  is  illustrated  in  the  case  of  Jerusalem,  which  for  a  time 
was  called  iElia  Capitolina,  but  afterwards  assumed  its 
ancient  appellation,  The  same  remark  may  apply  to  what 
is  said  in  Judg.  xviii.  29,  respecting  a  place  called  Dan.  See 
Gen.  xiv.  14.  This  may  have  been  its  original  name,  al- 
though for  a  time  it  was  called  Liaish  or  Leshem,  the  first 
designation  being  re-applied  in  memory  of  the  son  of  Ja- 
cob. Some  writers,  however,  are  of  the  opinion,  that  there 
were  two  places  of  the  name  of  Dan  lying  in  the  northern 
part  of  Palestine,  and  Hengstenberg  supposes  the  Dan  of 
2  Sam.  xxiv.  6,  to  be  the  one  of  them,  to  which  the  addition 
of  Jaan  is  appended,  in  order  to  distinguish  it  from  the 
Dan-Laish  of  the  book  of  Judges.  Authentic  des  Pent.  II. 
p.  194,  , 

(63.)  Elam  is  certainly  a  part  of  Persia,  if  it  does  not 
comprehend  the  whole.  From  the  prominency  given  in  the 
narrative  to  the  king  of  this  country,  (see  particularly  v. 
4,  5,  17,)  it  has  been  inferred,  that  the  Elamites,  identical 
probably  with  the  Persians,  were  the  most  powerful  nation 
of  Western  Asia,  since  even  Canianitish  kings  were  tribu- 
tary to  them.  Shinar  is  the  word  for  Babylonia.  What 
country  is  meant  by  Ellasar  is  uncertain.  See  Gesenius, 
who  thinks  that  "  the  Assyro-Babylonian  name  of  its  kingi 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  245 

Arioch,  seems  to  indicate  some  province  of  Persia  or  Assy- 
ria. Comp.  Dan,  ii.  14." — The  word  Qll^,  which  is  rendered 
*'  nations,"  comprehends  probably  the  country  lying  north- 
east of  Gainiee.  Comp.  Isa.  viii.  23,  (ix,  1,)  "  Gallilee  of  the 
nations." 

(64.)  It  is  said  in  v.  7,  that  "  they  smote  all  the  country  of 
the  Amalekites,"  and,  inasmuch  as  Amalek  was  a  grandson 
of  Esau,  xxxvi.  12,  the  introduction  of  the  Amalekites  in  the 
history  of  Abraham  has  been  thought  to  involve  a  palpable 
contradiction. 

Most  commentators,  following  the  authority  of  Josephus, 
(Ant.  Lib.  II.  cap.  1.  §  2,)  take  it  for  granted,  that  the  Ama- 
lekites were  descended  from  the  Amalek  just  mentioned,  and 
account  for  the  introduction  of  the  name  here  by  supposing 
a  prolepsis.  Hengstenberg,  ubi  sup.  II.  p.  303  ss.,  has  de- 
fended this  view.  Some  very  distinguished  writers,  how- 
ever, among  whom  may  be  reckoned  Calmet,  Le  Clerc, 
Michaelis,  and  Bryant,*  maintain  that  the  Amalekites  were 
a  very  ancient  nation,  flourishing  long  before  the  age  of 
Esau's  grandson,  and  of  course  wholly  independent  of  him. 
It  may  be  proper  to  state  the  principal  arguments  on  both 
sides  of  this  question. 

1.  On  the  one  side  it  is  said,  that  the  place  of  residence 
of  the  Amalekites  is  "Mount  Seir,"  the  country  which  was 
occupied  by  the  descendants  of  Esau.  Thus  we  read  in  1 
Chron.  iv.  42,  43,  that  "  some  of  the  sons  of  Simeon  went 
to  Mount  Seir,  and  smote  the  Amalekites."  The  country  of 
the  Amalekites,  therefore,  belonged  to  Idumea.  Such  a 
coincidence  is  most  readily  accounted  for  on  the  supposition 
that  the  Amalekites  were  a  part  of  the  Edomites. 

Undoubtedly  this  would  be  the  readiest  solution,  if  it  in- 

•  Analysis  of  Mythology,  vi.  212  ss. 


246  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vn. 

volved  no  difficulty.  But  it  is  by  no  means  a  necessary  solu- 
tion ;  as  it  is  quite  conceivable,  that  the  ancient  Amalekites  may 
have  settled  in  that  mountainous  region,  while  the  Edomites 
subsequently  took  possession  of  such  portions  as  remained 
unoccupied.  Incidental  circumstances,  which  history  has 
not  transmitted  to  us,  may  have  given  rise  to  a  local  con- 
nexion between  the  Edomites  and  the  ancient  Amalekites. 

2.  Again,  it  is  said  to  be  quite  improbable,  that  a  people 
standing  in  so  important  a  relation  to  the  Israelites,  should  be 
without  any  genealogical  notice.  This  is  foreign  from  the 
ordinary  usage  of  the  book  of  Genesis.  And  it  is  still  more 
improbable,  that  no  intimation  should  be  given  in  the  whole 
work  of  two  distinct  and  separate  races  of  Amalekites. 

The  latter  remark  assumes  the  contested  point,  for  the 
language  of  Gen.  xiv.  7,  may  itself  be  an  intimation  of  an 
Amalekitish  race  anterior  to  the  time  of  Esau ;  not  to  say, 
that  other  places  in  the  Pentateuch  hereafter  to  be  examined 
may  strengthen  such  an  opinion.  Besides,  the  descendants 
of  Amalek,  the  grandson  of  Esau,  may  have  been  merged 
among  the  Edomites  in  general,  just  as  the  posterity  of  Ja- 
cob's twelve  sons  are  usually  designated  by  the  name  of 
Israelites  ;  unless,  indeed,  they  became  incorporated  with  the 
more  ancient  Amalekites,  in  consequence  of  some  associa- 
tion or  affinity  which  history  has  not  preserved.  The  con- 
clusion drawn  from  the  general  usage  of  the  book  of  Genesis 
is  unauthorized.  Where  is  the  genealogical  notice  of  the 
Chaldees  and  Perizzites  ?  In  relation  to  the  former,  nothing 
can  be  inferred  from  the  name  Chesed  in  Gen.  xxii.  22,  and 
the  origin  of  the  latter  is,  I  believe,  unnoticed.  We  cannot 
argue  from  the  frequent  to  the  invariable  usage  of  an 
author. 

3.  Some  force  has  been  attached  to  the  phraseology  in 
Gen.  xiv.  7,  "  the  country  of  the  Amalekites,"  not  the  people 
themselves.     Hence  it  has  been  supposed  that  the  author  in- 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]       NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  247 

tended  to  designate  the  region  which  in  his  own  time  was 
occupied  by  the  descendants  of  Esau's  grandson.  It  would 
not  follow  that  Amalekites  resided  there  in  the  age  of  Abra- 
ham, in  reference  to  whom  the  name  will  have  been  used  by 
way  of  anticipation. 

The  possibility  of  this  is  hardly  to  be  denied.  But  I  think 
it  is  exceedingly  improbable.  All  the  other  names  in  this 
part  of  the  history  seem  to  be  those  which  were  in  use  in 
Abraham's  time,  and  there  ought  to  be  strong  reasons  for 
excepting  the  term  under  consideration  from  the  generaj 
usage.  Neither  is  it  very  likely  that  a  writer  so  learned 
and  intelligent  as  the  author  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  would 
designate  a  tract  of  country  in  this  way,  although  he  might 
proleptically  introduce  the  name  of  a  city  or  village.  Is  it 
to  be  supposed,  that  a  historian  of  Great  Britain  would  re- 
present an  inroad  made  on  the  Saxons  of  England,  as  an 
attack  on  a  country  of  the  Normans  ?  The  statement  of 
this  analogous  case  places  the  difficulty  of  the  supposition  in 
its  true  light. 

The  other  view  of  the  subject  is  thus  defended. 

1.  The  identity  of  names  proves  nothing.  The  grandson 
of  Esau  may  have  had  the  name  of  Amalek  given  him 
either  from  some  incidental  cause,  or  on  account  of  the  dis. 
tinguished  character  of  the  more  ancient  personage  who 
had  made  it  celebrated. 

2.  In  Num.  xxiv.  30,  Amalek  is  called  "  the  first  of  the 
nations,"  which'  certainly  implies  at  the  very  least  great  an- 
tiquity. But  this,  says  Hengstenberg,  is  a  misapprehension 
of  the  true  meaning  of  the  words.  They  must  be  limited 
by  the  context,  which  refers  to  the  hostile  attitude  assumed 
against  Israel.  In  this  sense  the  Amalekites  took  precedence, 
as  they  were  the  first  of  the  neighboring  tribes  to  attack  the 
Hebrews  on  their  march  towards  Canaan.  See  Ex.  xviiy 
8 — 16.     This  sense  of  the  place  is  supported  by  the  Chaldee 


24$  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vii. 

Tar^um,  which  paraphrases  it  thus  :  "  first  of  the  wars 
against  Israel,  blJ^ltZJ^  iJ^^nip  ffi'n,"  that  is,  first  of  those 
nations  who  made  war  upon  the  IsraeHtes.  It  appears  more 
reasonable,  however,  to  consider  the  words  as  expressive, 
not  of  an  insulated  fact  in  their  history,  but  of  some  well 
known  property  or  characteristic  of  the  nation,  its  great  an- 
tiquity, comprehending  also  well  established  strength.  This 
is  in  harmony  with  what  is  said  in  the  following  verse,  which 
describes  the  impregnable  security  in  which  the  strongly 
fortified  Kenites  boasted.  The  limitation  put  upon  the  words 
is  indefensible,  such  an  addition  to  their  simple  sense  being 
wholly  unnecessary. 

2.  It  is  further  argued,  that  the  opposite  conduct  which 
the  Hebrews  were  directed  to  pursue  towards  the  Edomites, 
who  were  descendants  of  Esau,  and  towards  the  Amalekites, 
proves  them  to  have  been  distinct  races.  The  former  were 
to  be  treated  as  brethren  ;  with  the  latter  they  were  to 
■wage  interminable  war.  See  Num.  xx.  14 — 21,  Deut.  ii. 
4,  5,  xxiii.  7 ;  with  which  texts  compare  Ex.  xvii.  8 — 16,  Deut. 
XXV.  17 — 19,  and  1  Sam.  xv.  2  ss.  In  reply  to  this,  Hengs- 
tenberg  remarks,  that  good  reason  can  be  given  for  the  dif- 
ferent conduct  of  the  Israelites  towards  the  Amalekites  and 
the  other  Edomites.  "  These,  although  not  friendly  to  the 
Israelites,  had  done  nothing  against  them  to  dissolve  a  fra- 
ternal connexion  as  the  Amalekites  had."  But  this  is  evi-* 
dently  inconsistent  with  the  representation  in  Num.  xx.  18, 
20,  21,  where  Edom  replies  to  his  "  brother  Israel's"  request 
to  be  permitted  merely  to  "pass  through"  the  country,  "thou 
shalt  not  pass  by  me,  lest  I  come  out  against  thee  with  the 
sword ;"  and  further  still  with  the  fact,  that  the  Edomites  did 
actually  "  come  out  against  the  Israelites  with  much  people 
and  with  a  strong  hand,"  and  "  refused  to  give  Israel  passage 
through  his  border." 

3.  The  traditionary  account  of  the  Arabians  is  also  ap- 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]         NOTES     TO    GENESIS.  249 

pealed  to  in  defence  of  this  view.  Their  historians  repre- 
sent Alnalel^:  as  the  son  of  Ham,  the  father  of  Ad  and  grand- 
father of  Sliedad.  See  Calmet's  Dictionary,  and  D'Her- 
belot's  Bibliotheque  Orientale  under  Amlak. 

On  the  whole,  the  evidence  appears  to  preponderate  in 
favor  of  the  opinion,  that  the  Amalekites  were  a  powerful 
nation  existing  long  before  the  age  of  Esau. 

(G5.)  If  as  many  as  three  hundred  and  eighteen  men  ca- 
pable of  bearing  arms  were  born  in  Abram's  house,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  his  domestic  establishment  could  not  have  con- 
sisted of  less  than  one  thousand  five  hundred  or  two  thousand 
souls.  He  was  therefore  a  powerful  chief;  and  thus  he  is 
represented  in  several  places  in  Genesis.  See  xii.  5,  xiii.  2,  0, 
xxiii.  G,  xxiv.  10,  35,  53. 

(66.)  There  is  no  contradiction  between  v.  17  and  10. 
The  opinion  of  Aben  Esra,  that  the  kings  of  Sodom-  and 
Gomorrah  threw  themselves  into  some  of  the  pits  for  the 
purpose  of  concealment,  is  unnecessary ;  neither  is  it  sup- 
ported by  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word  bSl  The  most 
probable  meaning  is,  that  they  and  their  men  fled  to  this 
valley,  where  some  were  destroyed,  and  others  escaped  to 
the  mountain  region.  The  king  of  Sodom  was  fortunately 
among  the  latter  number. 

(67.)  All  historical  knowledge  respecting  Melchisedek  that 
can  be  relied  on  is  contained  in  this  very  brief  account. 
Nothing  more  is  known  of  him  except  that  he  was  king  of 
a  place  called  Salem,*  which  was  probably  situated  on  the 

*  Some  have  identified  this  place  whh  Jerusalem,  but  without  any 
satisfactory  proof.     Jerusalem  is  indeed  called  Salem,  (Ps.  Ixxvi.  2,) 
by  a  contraction  probably  ;  but  the  historical  circumstances  here  men- 
tioned, render  it  most  probable  that  Salem  was  considerably  north  of 
32 


250  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vn. 

west  of  the  Jordan  between  the  lake  of  Gennesaret  and  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  that  he  was  a  priest  of  Jehovah  ;  thus  uniting 
in  his  person,  agreeably  to  ancient  usage,  the  royal  and 
sacerdotal  characters.  The  peculiarity  of  the  "  order"  or 
rank  of  his  priesthood,  and  the  analogy  which  it  bore  to  the 
priestly  office  of  Christ,  are  points  of  Christian  doctrine,  but 
not  connected  with  the  history  of  Abrarn.  See  Ps.  ex.  4, 
and  Heb.  vii. 

The  dignity  of  this  distinguished  personage  is  well  argued 
in  the  chapter  last  referred  to.  But  the  opinion  advanced 
by  some  of  the  old  Romanists,  and  lately  also  by  Dr.  Hale, 
ubi  sup.  Vol.  I.  p.  128,  that  the  "  bread  and  wine"  which  he 
is  here  said  to  have  brought  to  Abram,  v.  18,  were  em- 
blematic of  the  eucharistic  elements,  is  utterly  unfounded. 
The  natural  result  of  such  extravagant  representations  is  to 
lessen  the  reader's  respect  for  scripture  and  for  the  judg- 
ment of  the  author.  Every  one  knows  that  the  term  'bread' 
is  used  by  the  Hebrews  for  food  in  general,  and  wine  was 
useful  to  restore  the  exhausted  energies  of  Abram's  party. 
A  refutation  of  this  unfounded  notion,  against  the  alleged 
arguments  of  Natalis  Alexander,  may  be  found  in  Buddteus, 
ubi  sup.  p.  268—270. 

(68.)  Whether  'nblH,  v.  2,  refers  to  his  course  of  life,  as 
if  he  had  said,  '  I  am  passing  my  time,'  or  his  advanced  age, 
and  the  probability  of  his  passing  away  from  the  present 
scene,  is  doubtful.  The  Septuagint  often  translates  it  by 
words  expressive  of  dying.  Here  it  uses  a*oXjo,aai,  in  Ps. 
xxxix.  13,  (14,)  u.'jfnX^hv,  and  in  Iviii.  8,  (9,)  dvravotiJ'sJvja'ov-ai. — 

Jerusalem.  Certainty  on  such  a  point  is  unattainable.  The  passage  in 
2  Sam.  xviii.  18,  "Absalom  had  reared  up  a  pillar,  which  is  in  the 
kini;'s  dale,"  throws  no  liglit  on  the  geogra])hical  situation  of  the  place; 
because  the  locality  of  "  the  king's  dale"  cannot  be  deteriiiined.  To 
assume  that,  it  lay  near  Jerusalem,  is  to  beg  ilie  point  in  question. 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]         NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  251 

Mostoft'^e  old  versions  and  Ciimmentators  explain  pU)^p~15 
as  a  Hebr:ii.S!n  iijr  "steward;"  either  from  DVD  or  p^'!? 
to   ran   about,  expressive   of  activity,  diligence,  supervision, 

or  from  the  Arabic  ^jLa,  to  comb,  trim,  polish,  keep  in  or- 
der, according  to  the  ofiice  of  a  superintendent.  A  few 
consider  p'i|J)2  as  a  proper  name.  It  is  evidently  a  parono- 
masia with  what  follows  ptp/a"]!,  and  may  be  used,  as  Gese- 
nius  thinks,  for  TiXpJ2  possession,  which  is  probably  its  mean- 
ing in  Job  xxviii.  18.  The  [)hrase  will  thus  be  a  Hebraism 
for  '  possessor,'  and  convey  the  idea  expressed  in  the  Ana- 
lysis. For  a  full  view  of  the  ancient  authorities  on  this  pas- 
sage, the  reader  may  consult  Rosenmiiller's  note. 

(G9.)  It  is  not  probable  that  Abram's  faith,  from  which  his 
justification  resulted,  is  mentioned  here  as  a  part  of  the 
vision  ;  although  it  is  barely  possible,  and  might  be  so  re- 
presented, as  an  intimation  of  the  fixed  habit  of  his  mind ; 
as  in  the  case  of  Solomon's  asking  for  wisdom  in  a  dream. 
See  1  Kings  iii.  5  ss.  If  the  account  of  what  took  place  in 
the  vision  extended,  as  Rosenmiiller  thinks,  to  the  ninth  verse 
inclusive,  the  sixth  should  be  regarded  as  parenthetical. 
The  fifth  is  easily  explained  ;  as  the  Lord  may  be  said  to 
have  brought  Abram  out  and  showed  him  the  stars,  although 
no  corporeal  action  took  place,  but  all  was  represented  to 
the  mind.  The  language  of  ilVlAiMONtDEs*  illustrates  this 
remark.      J^^^b    '^bn    li^tl)  'Qlbnn    dl55    !l!S5Tt2)   1)3D 

li^jnpi  'p  lb  nbi:3i  'i^sT  ii^^i  'nt25i5  m  js^trsi  'n^Dibsn 

nni^  *  *  *  *  '1:^1  ni^i:25n  n5<:i?2i  ntri?"'  ii<  i^^jt  "itsij^ 
n^tjnb  '^-^.^m  &^b  ni<in5n  n^M^'D.  n^n  b^n^  y^MiVi 

*  More  Nevochim,  Part  II.  chap.  46,   fol.  70,   Berlin  edition,  1795, 
and  iu  Buxtorf's  translation,  p.  322. 


253  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  (part  vii. 

ib^nb  ^^t2i^  !sjbi  ibs^  'n  1)2^^1  i^^n^n  n^^^^^r:;  1:^5 

,J  Qlbnin  tTTtu;  "  As  in  a  dream,"  says  this  learned  and  ju- 
dicious Rabbi,  •'  a  man  may  seem  to  himself  to  go  to  a  cer- 
tain country,  to  marry  a  wife,  and  spend  a  considerable  time 
there,  to  have  a  son  by  her  called  by  some  particular  name, 
and  of  whom  this  and  that  may  be  said  ;  so  is  it  also  in  pro- 
phetic vision.  Actions  and  things  which  the  prophet  is 
said  to  do,  space  of  time  intervening  between  different  ac- 
tions, removal  from  one  place  to  another;  all  these  are  done  in 
prophetic  vision,  and  are  not  to  be  considered  as  real  and  sen- 
eible  actions,  however  minutely  they  may  be  specified.  To 
state  that  any  particular  part  of  a  communication  was  made 
in  prophetic  vision,  would  have  been  unnecessary,  because 
it  was  well  known  that  the  whole  took  place  in  that  way." 
It  is  indeed  possible,  that  the  first  communication  may  end 
with  the  fourth  verse,  and  another  be  comprehended  in 
7 — 9,  and  again  a  third  begin  with  v.  12.  But  this  is,  to 
•say  the  least,  unnecessary  ;  and  it  is  not  probable,  as  the 
second  communication  would  be  introduced  abruptly,  with- 
out any  notice  of  the  manner,  while  the  first  is  mentioned  as 
■taking  place  "in  a  vision,"  and  the  last  is  made  after  "a  deep 
■sleep  and  horror  had  fallen  on  Abram."  The  mental  agony 
which  he  suffered,  may  have  been  occasioned  in  part  by  agi- 
tating reflections  on  his  situation  and  prospects  ;  but,  in  all 
probability,  it  was  caused  in  a  much  greater  degree  by  natural 
inability  to  bear  divine  communications  without  being  deeply 
and  distressingly  affected.     Comp.  Dan.  viii.  27,  x.  IG  ss. 

(70.)  In  Gen.  xv.  13,  it  is  said:  "they  shall  come  out  with 
great  substance."  The  particularity  of  the  prediction  is 
remarkable.  Compare  the  language  of  Ex.  iii.  21,  22:  "I 
will  give  this  people  favor  in  the  sight  of  the  Egyptians,  and 
it  shall  come  to  pass,  that,  when  ye  go,  ye  shall  not  go 


CHAP.  xi.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  253 

empty.  But  every  woman  shall  borrow  (ask)  of  her  neigh- 
bor, and  of  her  that  sojourneth  in  her  house,  jewels  of  silver 
and  jewels  of  gold  and  raiment ;  and  ye  shall  spoil  the 
Egyptians."  Add  xi.  2,  3,  and  xii.  35,  30. 

(71.)  The  emblems  of  affliction  and  almighty  protection 
passing  between  the  pieces  indicates  a  covenant  on  the  part 
of  God  with  Abram,  comprising  the  promise  of  deliverance 
from  the  predicted  calamity.  By  this  symbolical  rite,  co- 
venants were  anciently  ratified.  Why  this  emblematic  re- 
ference of  the  furnace  and  lamp  to  the  predicted  servitude 
and  deliverance,  should  be  regarded  as  out  of  place  in  con- 
sequence of  a  covenant  being  thus  indicated,  (as  Rosenmiiller 
suggests,)  I  am  unable  to  see. 

(72.)  Vossius,  in  his  work  on  idolatry.  Lib.  II.  cap.  74, 
p.  690 — 691,  explains  the  phrase,  "river  of  Egypt,"  of  the 
Nile ;  not  understanding,  however  its  main  stream,  but  a 
branch  running  from  the  Pelusiac  channel  towards  Palestine, 
and  falling  into  the  Mediterranean,  or  (as  he  calls  it,)  the 
Egyptian  or  Phoenician  sea,  near  the  southern  boundary  of 
that  country  :  ''  rivum  ex  brachio  Pelusiaco  Judasam  versus 
procurrentem,  indeque  prolluentem  in  mare  vEgyptium,  sive 
Phcenicium."  But  the  opposition  between  the  river  of 
Egypt  and  the  Euphrates,  shows  that  the  main  stream  itself 
is  meant.  The  prominence  of  this  river  accounts  for  its 
being  selected  to  mark  out  the  extreme  limit  of  the  promised 
land  on  the  one  side,  as  the  well  known  Euphrates  does  on 
the  other.  That  the  Hebrews  never  possessed  the  portion 
of  Egypt  which  lies  east  of  the  Nile  is  no  serious  difficulty. 
Nice  geographical  accuracy  is  not  intended.  Comp.  Ex. 
xxiii.  31.  The  substitution  of  Egypt  in  the  Analysis  for  the 
river  of  Egypt  is  in  accordance  with  2  Chron.  ix.  26  :  "  he 
reigned  from  the  river  even  unto  the  land  of  the  Philistines, 


254  NOTES    TO    GENESIS. 

and  to  the  border  of  Euypt."  Between  this  country  and 
that  occupied  by  the  Hebrews,  nothing  intervened  but  a 
small  portion  of  unimportant  desert. 

(73.)  See  Sale's  Preliminnry  Discourse,  prefixed  to  his 
translation  of  the  Koran,  Sect.  1.  p.  11.  London  edition,  1836. 
Also  Discourses  on  Prophecy,  by  Joiix  Davison,  B.  D.  third 
edition,  Oxford,  1834,  p.  490 — 493.  As  the  remarks  of  this 
writer  are  particularly  worthy  of  attention,  it  may  be  well 
to  lay  them  before  the  reader. 

"The  publication  [announcement]  of  this  prophecy  (res- 
pecting Ishmael)  is  ascribed  to  the  time  of  Abraham  ;  it  is 
said  to  have  been  given  beiore  the  birth  of  Ishmael,  who 
was  to  be  the  progenitor  and  founder  of  this  future  nation  ; 
of  which  nation  we  must  in  reason  understand  what  is  here 
foretold:  "he  shall  be  a  wild  man,  and  his  hand  shall  be 
against  every  man,  and  every  man's  hand  against  him  ;" 
since  such  a  state  of  general  hostility  could  hardly  attach  to 
an  individual,  except  as  the  representative  of  his  progeny  or 
nation.  But,  since  the  date  of  this  remote  prophecy  rests 
upon  the  word  of  Moses  in  the  Pentateuch,  we  cannot  assume 
that  this  particular,  respecting  its  time  of  publication,  is 
true;  and  though  the  faith  and  veracity  of  the  sacred  historian 
have  been  often  effectually  vindicated,  that  is  a  previous  or 
collateral  topic,  from  which  our  present  examination  shall 
borrow  nothing.  Suppose  then  that  the  public  knowledge 
of  the  prophecy  was  only  contemporary  with  the  Pentateuch 
itself.  The  Pentateuch,  containing  the  public  code  and 
solemn  annals  of  the  Jewish  people,  could  not  be  put  forth 
surreptitiously,  nor  in  any  other  age  than  that  which  it  bears 
upon  the  face  of  it ;  the  age  of  Moses  its  author.  At  that 
time,  if  not  before,  the  prophecy  was  extant. 

At  that  time,  then,  we  shall  have  a  prediction  delineating, 
under  a  brief,  but  expressive  description,  the  genius  and 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]         NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  255 

manners  of  a  people  who  liave  always  been  reckoned  a  very 
singular  race,  and  that  description,  in  all  its  brevity,  marking 
the  very  habits  of  hfe  by  which  this  race  has  been  distin- 
guished from  the  rest  of  the  world.  "He  will  be  a  wild 
man  ;  and  his  hand  will  be  against  every  man,  and  every 
man's  hand  against  him.  And  he  shall  dwell  in  the  presence 
of  all  his  brethren."  If  wo  call  for  the  report  of  the  his- 
torians and  travellers  of  every  age,  they  will  inform  us  that 
we  have  here  the  very  character  of  the  Arabian.  They 
will  tell  us  of  his  roving  habits  ;  of  the  desultory  career  of 
his  rude  freedom,  which  has  neither  been  subdued  by  con- 
quest, nor  reclaimed  by  the  milder  restraints  of  settle- 
ment and  civilization.  They  will  tell  us  also  of  the  license 
of  his  predatory  warfare  and  the  state  of  defiance  and 
hostility  whicli  forms  the  internaiiDnal  law  between  him  and 
those  around  him.  There  appears  therefore,  in  this  instance, 
to  have  been  an  exact  and  remarkable  accomplishment  of 
this  aboriginal  prophecy  concerning  the  Arabian  race. 

Will  it  be  said,  however,  that  so  soon  as  in  the  time  of 
Moses,  to  which,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  I  have  consented 
to  refer  the  publication  of  the  prophecy,  the  Ishmaelite  then 
was  what  he  since  has  always  been,  and  that  the  subsisting 
picture  of  his  national  manners  was  converted  into  the 
semblance  of  a  prediction?  History  is  too  imperfect  for  us 
to  sift  the  allegation.  If  we  admit  the  prophecy  to  have 
been  a  real  one,  we  may  easily  believe  that  the  people  who 
were  the  subject  of  it  soon  began  to  verify  it.  But  since, 
apart  from  the  prophecy,  wo  know  nothing  of  them  in  this 
respect,  let  us  consider  what  is  probable.  Now  I  think  it 
will  be  granted  that  the  imperfect  settlement  of  the  world, 
and  the  general  rude  state  of  nations  at  that  time,  render  it 
highly  improbable  that  any  such  deep  appropriate  marks 
could  have  bctrun  to  distinsjuish  the  Arabian,  as  would  ar- 
rest  the  attention  of  a  common  historian,  and  enable  him  to 


256  NOTES    TO    GEXESI3.  [part  vn, 

select  and  seize  so  truly,  the  one  example  of  those  peculiar 
national  habits  which  was  ultimately  to  survive  and  exceed 
the  rest.  There  were  too  many  wild  men  then,  to  make  one 
instance  of  it  in  a  race  a  rare  one.  Too  much  of  promis- 
cuous rapine  and  violence,  to  give  a  single  people  the  pri- 
vilege of  a  reputation  on  such  accounts. 

But  one  certainty  we  have,  that  is,  the  long  continued 
fulfilment  of  this  prophecy.  The  Arabians  have  occupied 
one  and  the  same  country.  They  have  roved,  like  the 
moving  sands  of  their  deserts  ;  but  their  race  has  been 
rooted  whilst  the  individual  has  wandered.  That  race  has 
neither  been  dissipated  by  conquest,  nor  lost  by  migration, 
nor  confounded  with  the  blood  of  other  countries.  They 
have  continued  to  dwell  "in  the  presence  of  all  their  breth- 
ren," a  distinct  national  family,  wearing,  upon  the  whole,  the 
same  features  and  aspect  which  prophecy  first  impressed 
upon  them.  The  wildness  which  is  incident  only  to  a  cer- 
tain stage  of  man's  social  nature,  has  been  permanent  with 
them;  and,  although  they  have  been  compacted  and  em- 
bodied as  a  nation  for  more  than  three  thousand  years,  they 
have  resisted  those  changes  of  habit  which  it  is  the  effect 
of  civil  union,  so  long  continued,  to  induce.  Plainly,  there 
is  something  unusual  and  remarkable  in  their  case.  And 
yet  the  account  which  could  now  be  given  of  them,  with  al! 
the  advantage  of  knowing  their  whole  past  history,  is  no 
other  than  was  given  of  them  long  ago,  in  the  first  rudi- 
ments of  their  national  existence,  if  w^e  take  the  prophecy 
at  the  lowest  supposable  date  of  it,  and  before  they  existed 
at  all,  if  we  rely  upon  the  only  direct  testimony  wdiich  we 
possess,  and  that  an  unimpcached  one,  as  to  the  real  time  of 
its  publication." 

(74.)  The  phrase  ''S&'D?',  rendered   in   our  version,  "  in 
the  presence  of,"  means  'on  the   east  of.'     In  describing 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  257 

places,  the  Hebrews  face  the  east.  Hence,  '^53~b3?,  hterally 
'  on  the  face  of,'  refers  to  the  region  which  is  towards  the 
face,  in  other  words,  the  east.  And  so  it  is  used  in  other 
places.  See  xxiii.  17,  19,  5S:1^)3  ^P3"b5?  'east  of  Mamre/ 
XXV.  9,  and  especially  18.  In  this  last  passage,  ''5S~b^ 
jSS  V/llJ^'Dp,  the  English  translation  is :  "  and  he  died  in 
the  presence  of  all  his  brethren."  But,  not  to  urge  the  ex- 
traordinary sense  which  this  implies,  (Ishmael's  dying  in  the 
presence  of  the  other  children  of  his  father,)  it  is  contrary 
to  usage.  DSD,  which  properly  means  '  to  fall,'  is  not  em- 
ployed in  the  sense  of  dying,  except  in  reference  to  violent 
death,  when  its  use  is  agreeable  to  analogy.  The  transla- 
tion ought  to  be,  'it  fell  on  the  east  of  his  brethren;'  and  the 
clause  is  evidently  elliptical,  meaning,  '  the  lot  fell,'  that  is,' 
*  their  country  lay  on  the  east  of  Palestine.'  So  the  Septua- 
gint,  JcaTwxrjfl'?.  In  Josh.  xiii.  6,  nbSri  is  correctly  rendered 
in  our  translation,  "  divide  thou  it  by  lot ;"  literally,  '  cause 
it  to  fall.'  The  death  of  Ishmael  is  mentioned  in  v.  17,  and 
is  succeeded  by  a  geographical  description  of  the  region  in 
which  his  posterity  lived.  Thus  the  Arabians  are  called 
'  sons  of  the  east,'  and  the  Arabian  magi  are  said  to  come 
from  the  east.  See  Justin  Martyr's  Dialogue  with  Trypho, 
Part  II.  Grabe's  edition,  p.  304.  Geographical  terms  are 
frequently  employed  in  scripture  with  some  degree  of  lati- 
tude. The  descendants  of  Ishmael  were  settled  partly  east 
and  partly  south-east  of  the  Hebrews,  the  latter  direction 
being  comprehended  under  the  more  general  term. 

Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  met  with  the  work  of  the 
Rev.  Charles  Foster,  B.  D.,  entitled  "  Mahometanisirt 
Unveiled,"  London,  1829,  2  vols.  8vo.  It  is  extraordinary 
that  so  sensible  a  writer  should  have  founded  an  important 
part  of  his  theory  on  an  interpretation  which  is,  at  least, 
of  doubtful  authority.  He  considers  the  expression,  'in 
33 


258  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vii. 

the  presence  of,'  as  implying  contiguity  of  situation,  and  "  a 
posture  of  hostility,"  "  hostile  contact  and  collision."  The 
character  of  hostility  is  indeed  explicitly  stated  in  the  former 
part  of  the  twelfth  verse  ;  but  it  is  by  no  means  implied  in 
the  words  under  consideration,  which  simply  refer  to  geo- 
graphical situation. #  This  learned  author,  however,  not 
satisfied  with  an  interpretation,  which  makes  the  "Ishmael- 
itish  Arabs  stretch  themselves  along  the  entire  frontier  of 
Canaan,  from  the  Euphj-ates  to  the  Red  Sea."  thinks 
that  he  finds  in  this  simple  geographical  designation  a 
prophecy  to  this  effect,  that  the  descendants  of  Ishmael 
should  not  only  "  exercise  an  implacable  and  unremitting 
hostility  against  the  offspring  of  Isaac,  their  brethren,  in  im- 
mediate contact  with  whom  they  were  at  first  planted  by 
the  hand  of  Providence,"  but  that  this  "  prophetic  conflict" 
was  in  subsequent  ages  to  be  "renewed,"  when  the  Jews  and 
Mohammedans  should  meet  in  the  remotest  countries  of  the 
world.  Vol.  I.  p.  93,  94,  135.  It  is  unnecessary  to  show, 
that  such  views  derive  no  support  from  the  language  of  the 
text.  But  it  may  not  be  unworthy  of  remark,  as  an  illus- 
tration of  the  vagueness  of  exposition  not  founded  on  philo- 
logical examination,  that  the  celebrated  Sir  Harry  Vane, 
Junior,  when  referring  to  a  law  of  exclusion  passed  by  the 
early  puritans  of  Massachusetts,  against  which  he  objected 
as  an  act  of  intolerance,  quotes  this  very  language  as  ex- 
pressive of  peaceful  and  harmonious  intercourse  !  "  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  and  such  as  are  confirmed  in  any  way  of 
error,  are  not  to  be  denied  cohabitation,  but  are  to  be  pitied 
and  reformed.  Ishmael  shall  dwell  in  the  presence  of  his 
brethren"  See  Bancroft's  History  of  the  United  States, 
Vol.  I.  p.  390,  fifth  edition. 

(75.)  The  English  translation  of  the  middle  clause  of  the 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  259 

thirteenth  verse,  "  thou  God  seest  me,"  follows  the  Scptua- 
guil  and  Vulgate,  du  o  Qsoj  h  snriiwv  \xs-  qui  vidisti  me.  This 
version  supposes  the  word  "^i^^.  to  be  a  participle  from  !lN!;'1 
with  1  as  a  pronominal  suffix.  The  regular  form  of  the 
participle  with  the  suffix  of  the  first  person  is  "^i&ii"!,  or  ac- 
cented '^p^'"l,  as  it  occurs  in  Isa.  xlvii.  10,  ""SiiJl  '1"'5^  'there 
is  none  that  seeth  me.'  Still  there  are  examples  of  the  use  of 
''i^l  as  a  participle  with  the  pronominal  suffix.  Thus  in 
Job  vii.  8,  ''iS"!  I^^"  "  the  eye  of  him  that  hath  seen  me  ;" 
and  Ps.  xxii.  8,  (7,)  ^5^n-bD  "  all  they  that  see  me."  Also 
xxxi.  12,  (11,)  ^!^'"1  "they  that  did  see  me."  It  is  better,  how- 
ever, to  consider  the  word  as  a  noun,  of  the  form  of  '^55'. 
affliction,  and  to  render  the  whole  phrase  thus :  '  thou  (art) 
the  God  of  sight,'  that  is,  who  allowest  thyself  to  be  seen. 
I  observe,  after  writing  this,  that  the  same  view  of  this 
word  is  given  by  Rabbi  Solomon  of  Dubno,  in  the  flblUd  T^l 
"  ^5^1  bj!<,  an  abstract  noun  of  the  form  of  ^yi,  i/p;i,  ^55^, 
meaning,  thou  art  the  God  of  seeing  (HSl^  illS^"!  b'^),  who 
appearest  to  the  sons  of  men."  The  reason  of  Hagars 
applying  this  name  appears  from  what  follows:  '  for  she  said, 
do  I  indeed  here  see,'  that  is,  enjoy  the  use  of  my  senses  and 
live,  '  after  my  sight,'  after  having  seen  the  symbol  of  the 
divine  presence  !  It  is  an  expression  of  grateful  surprise  at 
being  permitted  to  continue  in  life  and  health,  after  the  en- 
joyment of  a  privilege,  to  which  it  was  the  general  opinion 
that  no  one  could  be  admitted  and  live.  Comp.  Exod.  xx. 
19,  Deut.  xviii.  16,  Jud.  vi.  22,  23.  The  word  ^'I^JJ^'I 
is  evidently  chosen  as  a  paronomasia  with  '^^^.. — The  name 
given  to  the  s[)ring  is  of  the  same  import:  Beer-lahai-roi, 
meaning, '  the  well  of  the  living,  (an  epithet  usually  applied 
to  God,)  of  sight,'  that  is,  of  him  who  allows  himself  to  be 
seen. 


260  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vii. 

(76.)  Abram,  compounded  of  ^5<  father  and  Q'l  high,  is 
expressive  of  dignity.  By  a  very  slight  change  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  word,  it  becomes  Abraham,  meaning,  as  the  con- 
text explains,  father  of  a  great  multitude.  The  word  which 
forms  the  latter   part  of  the  name   no  longer  exists   in   the 

Hebrew  ;  but  it  is  found  in  the  Arabic  *L^y  a  great  num- 
ber. That  the  name  was  intended  to  intimate  his  spiritual 
relationship  of  paternity  to  all  the  faithful,  as  well  as  to  de- 
note the  immense  number  of  iiis  lineal  descendants,  we  have 
the  express  testimony  of  St.  Paul.  See  Rom.  iv.  11,  12,  16, 
17,  Gal.  iii.  7—9,  14,  16,  29. 

(77.)  On  the  authority  of  Herodotus,  Diodorus  Siculus, 
and  Strabo,  supported  by  other  evidence,  it  has  been  con- 
tended that  circumcision  originated  with  the  Egyptians,  from 
whom  it  spread  to  other  nations.  Among  the  defenders  of 
this  view,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  is  Spencer,  who 
gives  the  arguments  on  both  sides  with  fulness  and  learning, 
in  his  work  De  Legibus  Hebrseorum,  Lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  sect.  4. 
Le  Clerc,  also,  in  his  note  on  v.  10,  suggests  that  the  Egyp- 
tian practice  may  have  given  occasion  to  the  divine  com- 
mand to  Abraham.  Von  der  Hardt,  as  quoted  by  Buddaeus, 
ubi  sup.  Period  I.  sect.  iii.  cap.  4,  note  ***,  p.  277,  endea- 
vors to  remove  the  difRculty,  by  supposing  a  partial,  private, 
and  medicinal  use  of  the  rite  to  have  existed  antecedently  to 
the  time  of  Abraham,  but  not  allowing  its  general  use  among 
the  Egyptians.  But  such  an  occasional  practice  is  altogether 
hypothetical.  Rosenmiiller  in  loc.  cites  Jablonsk[,  saying 
that  as  circumcision,  both  among  the  Egyptians  and  the 
descendants  of  Abraham,  was  a  religious  rite,  emblematic 
of  purity,  it  was  not  regarded  as  obligatory  by  the  former 
except  on  the  priests  and  other  ecclesiastical  persons.  If 
this  very  limited  application  of  the  rite  were  more  ancient 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11. J        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  261 

than  Abraham's  time,  God  may  have  extended  the  obligation 
of  it  to  every  male,  in  order  to  intimate  that  his  people 
ought  all  to  be  holy,  like  priests.  But  the  passages  quoted 
from  the  Greek  authors  above  mentioned,  say  nothing  about 
a  limited  use  of  this  ceremony.  The  scriptural  evidence 
favors  the  opinion,  that  the  narrative  in  the  text  contains  the 
history  of  the  origin  of  circumcision.  In  defence  of  this 
view,  see  Buddteus,  ubi  sup.  p.  275 — 282.  Jer.  ix.  25,  26,  to 
which  Spencer  appeals  in  order  to  show  that  the  Egyptians 
were  a  circumcised  people,  is  certainly  better  adapted  to 
prove  the  contrary.  The  expression,  "  all  these  nations 
are  uncircumcised,"  being  in  immediate  connexion  with  the 
words,  "  all  the  house  of  Israel  are  uncircumcised  in  the 
heart,"  is  a  reason  for  taking  it  in  the  literal  and  most  com- 
prehensive sense.  See  Rosenmiiller  on  this  place,  who  allows, 
that  as  a  nation  the  Egyptians  were  uncircumcised,  and  the 
Idumseans  also  until  the  time  of  John  Hyrcanus.  Respect- 
ing the  practice  of  the  Ammonites  and  Moabites  we  have 
no  evidence,  p.  302,  303. — The  declaration  of  God  in  Jos. 
V.  9,  "  I  have  rolled  away  the  reproach  of  Egypt  from  off 
you,"  is  also  appealed  to  by  Spencer,  who  supposes  it  to 
imply,  that  before  the  time  of  Joshua,  uncircumcision  was 
regarded  by  the  Egyptians  as  disgraceful.  But  it  is  clear 
that  the  language  proves  nothing  on  this  point.  For  the 
phrase,  "  the  reproach  of  Egypt,"  may  as  well  be  explained 
of  contempt  usually  thrown  by  the  Israelites  on  their  Egyp- 
tian oppressors  ;  who  would  be  selected  as  the  objects  of 
this  opprobrium,  on  account  of  the  hatred  which  their  tyran- 
nical conduct  would  naturally  excite.  But,  probably,  the 
text  intimates  the  state  of  freedom  and  dignity  to  which  the 
Hebrews  are  now  considered  as  advanced,  on  renewing  their 
covenant  with  Jehovah  by  means  of  the  instituted  rite,  and 
immediately  on  their' entrance  into  the  promised  land.  "The 
reproach  of  Egypt"  will  thus  comprehend  the  former  dis- 


262  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vil. 

graceful  slavery,  the  evils,  and,  indeed,  the  very  memory  of 
which  may  be  said  to  be  removed  by  becoming  the  Lord's 
privileged  freemen. 

(78.)  The  excision  referred  to  is  explained  by  some  of  ex- 
communication, by  others  of  banishment.  But  the  opinion 
generally  maintained  by  the  Jews,  that  it  relates  to  some 
punishment  inflicted  by  divine  interposition,  is  best  supported. 
See  Levit.  xvii.  10,  xx.  2,  5,  6,  xxiii.  30.  That  divine  Pro- 
vidence always  interfered  to  punish  the  culprit  is,  by  no 
means,  a  necessary  consequence. 

(79.)  The  various  feelings  which  must  have  agitated 
Abraham's  mind,  now  of  delight,  arising  out  of  the  exercise 
of  full  faith,  and  again  of  apprehension,  springing  from  even 
the  shghtest  degree  of  doubt,  and  prompting  the  prayer  for 
the  son  already  born,  may  be  illustrated  by  a  comparison 
with  the  representation  made  in  the  Gospels  of  the  alterna- 
ting emotions  of  fear,  doubt,  and  joy,  with  which  the  Apos- 
tles received  the  evidence  of  their  master's  resurrection. 
See  Luke  xxiv.  34 — 37,  and  especially  v.  41  ;  from  which 
it  appears,  that,  after  they  had  themselves  informed  the 
disciples  who  had  just  arrived  from  Emmaus,"  that  the  Lord 
had  risen,"  and  thus  confirmed  the  account  of  his  appearance 
on  the  road,  immediately  on  his  showing  himself  they  are 
affrighted,  and  suppose  him  to  be  "  a  spirit,"  and  even  on 
further  evidence  "  believe  not  for  joy."  Homer  expresses 
the  same  natural  feeling,  when  he  represents  the  Trojans  as 
hardly  able  to  believe  that  their  darling  Hector  has  escaped 
in  safety  after  his  engagement  with  Ajax : 

Kai  ^  '/jyov  if^ort  ddrv,  dsXtovTsg  tfoov  sivai* 

Iliad,  vii.  310. 

The  note  of  Madame  Dacier,  cited  with  approbation  by 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS, 


263 


Clarke,  conveys  the  true   sentiment :  Pras   lastitia  vix  cre- 
dentes  verum  id  esse  quod  viderent. 

(80.)  The  language  of  our  English  version,  both  in  v.  10 
and  14,  "according  to  the  time  of  life,"  is  not  very  intelli- 
gible. The  Hebrew  is  H^n  il!?3,  and  it  occurs  also  in 
2  Kings  iv.  16,  17.  Our  translators  explain  ?1^n  as  a  noun. 
It  seems  better,  with  the  greater  proportion  of  good  critics, 
to  consider  it  as  an  adjective,  the  feminine  of  "^H  living. 
Thus  it  may  apply  to  Sarah  herself,  and  imply  that  she 
shall  live.  But  it  is  much  clearer  and  more  beautiful,  to  re- 
gard it  as  poetic  ;  literally,  '  according  to,'  (or  when)  '  the 
.  time'  (or  season,  or  year,)  '  is  living,'  reviving  again,  return- 
ing. Thus  it  will  denote,  as  Gesenius  thinks,  "  the  reviving 
year,  that  is,  the  coming  spring,  when  the  winter  shall  be 
past  and  nature  revives;"  or  else, 'this  same  season  next 
year,'  as  if  he  had  said,  '  when  this  time  (of  the  year)  lives 
again.'  See  xvii.  21,  from  which  it  is  probable  that  this 
divine  manifestation  to  Abraham  took  place  not  long  after 
his  submission  to  the  rite  of  circumcision.  • 

(81.)  The  punctuation  of  the  word  "^iDli^  in  v.  3,  with  the 
same  vowels  as  those  which  are  applied  to  tTin'',  and  the 
masoretical  intimation  of  sanctity  expressed  by  the  word 
12)np  in  the  margin,  seem  to  justify  the  conclusion,  that  the 
Rabbins  identified  the  person  whom  Abraham  addresses 
with  him,  to  whom  the  word  Ulir^  is  applied  in  v.  13,  14, 
17,  &c.*  And  probably  they  were  correct  in  so  doing,  as 
it  seems  difficult  to  make  the  whole  narrative  consistent  on 
any  other  supposition.     At  first  Abraham  sees  three  men,  to 

*■  Compare  also  the  Kabbinical  punctuation  of  "^^li^  in  Judg.  vi.  15, 
and  see  Vitringa's  Dissertation,  De  Angelo  Sacerdote,  in  his  Observa- 
tiones  Sacioe,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xiv.  §  xviii — xx.  p.  1099 — 1102. 


264  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vii. 

one  of  whom,  the  most  distinguished  perhaps  in  personal 
appearance,  he  directs  his  discourse.  The  promise  is  evi- 
dently announced  hy  this  same  personage,  (v.  10,)  as  none 
other  can  be  understood  without  introducing  an  additional 
speaker,  of  whom  the  text  gives  no  intimation.  That  the 
reproof  and  repetition  of  the  promise  contained  in  v.  13 — 15, 
which  are  ascribed  to  "  the  Lord,"  tllrT;,  Vv^ere  conveyed  by 
some  other  agent  than  the  person  just  referred  to,  or  one  of 
the  two  angels  that  accompany  him,  must  be  granted  to  be 
possible.  But  I  think  every  reader  will  perceive  that  such 
a  supposition  is  wholly  destitute  of  probability.  Pursuing 
the  narrative,  we  find  that  Abraham's  guests  bend  their 
course  towards  Sodom,  attended  by  their  host ;  that  before 
he  "  returns"  home  (v.  33,)  "  the  Lord"  communicates  to 
him  his  purpose  of  destruction,  and  Abraham  pleads  for  the 
guilty  cities.  The  language  of  the  sixteenth  verse  is  re- 
sumed in  the  twenty-second,  the  intermediate  being  parenthe- 
tical. It  is  said,  "  and  the  men  rose  up  from  thence  and 
looked  towards  Sodom  ;"  and  again,  "  and  the  men  turned 
their  faces  from  thence  and  went  toward  Sodom."  It  is 
most  natural  to  suppose,  that  the  "  three"  mentioned  in  the 
second  verse  are  intended  ;  and  yet  it  is  equally  natural  to 
infer  from  what  immediately  follows,  v.  17  ss.,  that  the  per- 
son who  makes  the  communication  ascribed  to  "  the  Lord," 
and  to  whom  Abraham  appears  to  address  his  supplication, 
is  one  of  the  same  party.  From  the  latter  part  of  the 
twenty-second  verse,  "  the  men — went  toward  Sodom,  hut 
Abraham  stood  yet  before  the  Lord,"  and  I'rom  the  narrative 
in  the  next  chapter,  from  which  it  appears  that  only  "two" 
of  the  angels  proceed  to  Sodom  in  order  to  accomplish 
the  divine  purpose,  this  inference  is  strengthened.  The  con- 
clusion would,  therefore,  seem  to  be,  that  the  most  promi- 
nent of  the  three  personages  introduced  in  tlie  narrative,  is 
he  whom  Abraham  principally  addresses ;  that,  if  he  accom- 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  265 

panied  the  other  two  beyond  the  precincts  of  Abraham's 
residence,  he  did  not  afterwards  rejoin  them  ;  and  that  these 
two  are  identical  with  the  angels  who  deliver  Lot  and  des- 
troy Sodom. 

Still,  however,  if  this  be  granted,  the  supposition  that 
Abraham  employed  the  title  "^SlS^  in  the  third  verse,  in  the 
sense  of  nltT^.  is  inadmissible  ;  for  doubtless  he  addressed 
the  stranger  with  the  ordinary  title  of  civility  and  respect, 
as  Lot  did  the  two  angels,  and  as  the  woman  of  Samaria 
did  our  Lord,  before  she  knew  anything  respecting  him,  ex- 
cept that  he  was  a  Jew  fatigued  by  travelling.  See  John 
iv.  IL  The  supposition  itself  is  no  doubt  of  very  high  an- 
tiquity, as  it  certainly  appears  in  the  Chaldee  Targum,  which 
uses  the  abbreviation  for  Jehovah,  ^'^.  The  use  of  the  sin- 
gular  in  the  Septuagint,  Vulgate,  and  Syriac  versions,  proves 
nothing  ;  as  it  may  be  employed  in  reference  to  the  most 
prominent  of  the  three.  Our  own  translation  "  my  Lord," 
agrees  with  this  opinion.  Still,  if  the  received  punctuation 
be  followed,  "^pilJ^  may  be  the  plural  with  the  suffix,  the 
vowel  being  lengtliened  on  account  of  the  accent. 

The  Jewish  interpreters  having  laid  it  down  as  a  princi- 
ple, that  no  more  than  one  commission  is  delegated  to  one 
angel  at  a  time,  account  for  the  mission  of  three  by  saying, 
that  one  was  sent  to  predict  the  birth  of  a  son  to  Abraham, 
another  to  save  Lot,  and  the  third  to  destroy  the  devoted 
cities.  Hence  they  attempt  to  explain  some  of  the  pecu- 
liarities of  this  narrative.  For  instance,  the  plui'al  number 
is  employed  in  the  first  nine  verses,  (except  the  third,  for 
which  a  reason  has  already  been  given,)  while  the  promise 
of  the  birth  of  a  son,  (v.  10,)  is  made  in  the  singular.  So 
in  xix.  17 — 22,  where  one  of  the  angels  speaks,  and  is  ad- 
dressed by  Lot.  But  this  is  rather  plausible  than  solid. 
For  in  the  latter  reference,  both  singular  and  plural  are 
34 


266  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vir. 

used  in  intimate  connexion  in  v.  17  :  "  and  it  came  to  pass, 
when  they  had  brought  them  forth  abroad,  that  he  said.' 
And  from  what  precedes^  it  is  plain  that  this  distinction  of 
offices  is  assumed  without  proof.  The  promise  of  a  son  is 
indeed  in  the  singular,  but  the  inquiry  for  Sarah,  which  in- 
troduces it,  is  in  the  plural:  (xviii.  9,  10.)  Thus,  too,  in  xix.. 
10,  11,  12,  15,  16,  Lot's  security  is  ascribed  indifferently  ta 
both  the  angels.  And  so  also  in  reference  to  the  destruction 
of  the  cities  in  v.  13.  Such  language  as  that  in  v,  21,  22,  is 
easily  explicable.  One  among  a  multitude  of  agents  might 
employ  it ;  much  more  one  of  two.  The  natural  and  sim- 
ple supposition,  that  Lot  or  Abraham  addresses  the  agent 
who  is  apparently  the  most  prominent,  or  even  the  most 
accessible,  satisfactorily  explains  the  alternate  use  of  either 
number. 

The  narrative  under  consideration,  according  to  the  view 
above  taken  of  it,  suggests  an  inquiry  of  no  little  interest 
both  in  its  nature  and  results.  If  it  be  one  of  the  three 
seeming  men  whom  Abraham  addresses  by  the  title  "  the 
Lord,"  tlln"]',  does  it  follow  that  the  person  so  addressed  is 
really  the  uncreated  ? — is  it  God  himself  who  appears  under 
the  image  of  a  man? — or,  is  the  divine  agent,  whom  Je- 
hovah sends  to  effect  his  purposes,  regarded  as  his  substitute,, 
inasmuch  as  he  acts  by  his  authority  ;  and  does  he  conse- 
quently appear  invested  with  his  dignity,  assuming  his- 
name  and  character  ?  To  settle  this  question  by  a  full  ex- 
amination of  Scripture  and  ancient  Jewish  authority,  would 
be  quite  incompatible  with  the  brevity  of  these  notes.  Ne 
doubt,  as  Drusius  remarks,  it  is  the  general  practice  in  these 
accounts,  to  ascribe  to  God  what  the  angels  whom  he  com- 
missions, are  said  to  do ;  and  the  Lord  is  often  said  to  speak 
and  act  when  he  employs  the  instrumentality  of  an  angeL 
The  principle  on  which  such  phraseology  occurs,  is  stated 
in  the  axiom,  qui  facit  per  alium  facit  per  se.     In  the  nar- 


4 

CHAP.  KI.  27— XXV.  II.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS,  267 

rative  the  instrument  employed  is  frequently  unnoticed, 
■"  because"  (to  use  the  words  of  Maimonides,  More  Nevo- 
chim,  Part  IL  chap.  41,  fol.  55,)  "  of  the  well  known  and 
fundamental  principle,  that  prophecy  is  communicated  only 
by  means  of  an  angel."  He  refers  to  Gen.  xii.  1,  xxxi.  3, 
and  several  other  places. — Still,  I  rather  think,  that  the  view 
of  most  of  the  ancient  Jews  and  Christian  fathers,  who 
thought  that  the  divine  person,  who  is  afterwards  denom- 
inated the  Logos,  is  the  being  who  manifests  himself  in 
several  of  the  extraordinary  appearances  attributed  to  Je- 
hovah under  the  old  dispensation,  is  best  supported  by  the 
general  analogy  of  scripture  in  relation  to  this  subject.  See 
Hengstenberg's  Christology,  Vol.  I.  p.  219  ss.,  Keith's 
Translation,  164  ss.,  where  the  reader  will  find  a  great 
deal  of  valuable  information,  although  he  will  hardly  be 
able  to  acquiesce  in  all  the  learned  author's  criticism  and 
reasoning. 

In  order  that  the  reader  may  judge  for  himself  on  this 
point,  it  may  be  well  to  call  his  attention  to  those  portions 
of  the  book  of  Genesis  which  bear  upon  the  subject- 
After  that  under  review,  which  is  the  first  in  order,  the 
twenty-first  chapter  contains  the  next  instance.  Hagar,  in 
her  desolate  condition,  is  almost  reduced  to  despair  at  the 
prospect  of  her  son's  death,  "  And  God  heard  the  voice  of 
the  lad ;  and  the  angel  of  God  called  to  Hagar  out  of 
heaven,  and  said  unto  her,  what  aileth  thee,  H;)gar?  fear 
not,  for  God  hath  heard  the  voice  of  the  lad  where  he  is. 
Arise,  lift  up  the  lad,  and  hold  him  in  thine  hand  ;  for  / 
will  make  him  a  great  nation.'  v,  17,  18.  The  most  natural 
construction  of  these  words  is  undoubtedly  that  which  iden- 
tifies the  angel  of  God  with  the  one  who  promises  to  make 
Ishmael  a  great  nation.  And,  if  this  be  the  true  construc- 
tion, the  angel  claims  divine  prerogative ;  as  it  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  any  creature  would  appropriate  to  himself  the 


268  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vii. 

power  and  will  implied  in  the  promise.  If  it  should  be 
said,  that  God  himself  is  the  speaker  in  the  eighteenth  verse, 
and  that  an  ellipsis  of  'and  he  saith,'  or  some  such  phrase, 
is  to  be  supplied  after  the  seventeenth,  the  possibility 
of  this  is  not  to  be  denied  :  indeed,  under  certain  circum- 
stances, such  an  ellipsis  would  be  quite  natural.  But  whether 
it  were  intended  by  the  author,  and  the  interpreter  has  there- 
fore a  right  to  claim  this,  and  supply  it,  is  entirely  another 
question.  An  examination  of  other  analogous  places  affords 
the  most  satisfactory  ground  of  decision,  and  leads,  I  think, 
to  the  conclusion,  that  no  such  ellipsis  was  intended.  This 
will  appear  from  some  of  the  texts  which  remain  to  be 
adduced. 

The  next  passage  bearing  on  the  subject  may  be  found  in 
the  twenty-second  chapter.  In  the  first  verse,  God  is  said 
to  try  Abraham,  by  commanding  him  to  sacrifice  his  son. 
Jehovah's  angel  prevents  the  consummation  of  the  act,  and 
the  language  employed  (v.  12,)  to  convey  the  prohibition,  is 
most  readily  explained  on  the  supposition,  that  he  is  himself 
a  divine  person :  "  Lay  not  thine  hand  upon  the  lad,  for  now 
I  know  that  thou  fearest  God,  seeing  thou  hast  not  with- 
held thine  only  son  from  me."  Unless  this  be  allowed,  we 
must  suppose  an  unnatural  ellipsis  of  some  phrase  to  indi- 
cate that  God  is  the  speaker.  It  cannot  be  objected  to  the 
view  here  preferred,  that,  if  it  were  correct,  the  language 
would  be  this:  "now  I  know  that  thou  fearest  me;"  because 
the  use  of  the  noun  for  the  pronoun  is  very  common  in  He- 
brew.    Comp.  XXXV.  1  ;  and  note  83,  below. 

The  next  passage  is  in  chapter  xxxi.  By  comparing  the 
eleventh  and  thirteenth  verses,  it  is  evident,  that  "  the  angel  of 
God"  is  said  to  declare  himself  to  be  "  the  God  of  Bethel,"  to 
whom  Jacob  had  vowed  a  vow,  as  is  related  in  xxxiii.  20 — 22. 
It  would  seem  undeniable,  that  the  patriarch  regarded  him  as 
a  really  divine  person.     And,  if  this  conclusion  required  any 


CHAP.  XI.  27— sxv.  11.]       NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  269 

confirmation,  the  language  in  xxxii.  9,  would  afford  the  fullest. 
For  the  being  who  commands  his  return  to  the  land  of  his 
kindred  is  "  Jehovah,  the  God  of  his  fathers  Abraham  and 
Isaac." 

The  same  result  is  fairly  attained  by  comparing  xxxii. 
28 — 30,  with  Hosea  xii.  3,  4,  1  Kings  xviii.  31,  and  2  Kings 
xvii.  34,  The  same  agent  is  denominated  indifferently, 
God,  Jehovah,  angel  of  God,  or  of  Jehovah.  Compare  also 
XXXV.  10  ss. 

The  last  passage  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  is  xlviii.  15,  16. 
"  God,  before  whom  my  fathers  Abraham  and  Isaac  did 
walk,  the  God  which  fed  me  all  my  life  long  unto  this  day, 
the  angel  which  redeemed  me  from  all  evil,  bless  the  lads." 
Here  the  God  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  is  plainly  identical 
with  the  angel  who  delivered  Jacob  from  the  various  evils 
which  had  surrounded  him.  Most  certainly,  this  is  Jacob's 
own  impression  ;  and  unless  this  angel  is  really  divine,  it 
would  seem  impossible  to  vindicate  the  patriarch  from  the 
charge  of  superstition  and  idolatry. 

This  view  of  the  subject  coincides  with  the  plain  meaning 
of  certain  texts  elsewhere  occurring  in  the  Pentateuch.  Thus 
in  Ex.  iii.  2,  it  is  "  the  angel  of  Jehovah"  that  appears  to 
Moses  "  in  a  flame  of  fire  out  of  the  midst  of  a  bush  ;"  and 
yet,  immediately  afterwards,  we  read  that  God  calls  to  him 
from  the  midst  of  the  bush,  declares  the  place  to  be  holy, 
and  avows  himself  to  be  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  v.  4  ss. — In  xiv.  19,  also,  "  the  angel  of 
God"  and  "the  pillar  of  the  cloud"  are  said  to  go  behind  the 
Israelites  ;  and  in  v.  24,  Jehovah  is  represented  as  troubling 
"  the  host  of  the  Egyptians"  by  looking  "  through  the  pillar 
of  fire  and  of  the  cloud."  Dathe,  indeed,  in  his  note  on 
Ex.  xxxiii.  21,  adopting  the  opinion  of  Herder,  that  any 
symbol  or  visible  thing  under  which  the  invisible  God  dis- 
plays himself,  is  called  the  angel  or  messenger  of  Jehovah, 


270  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vii. 

says,  that  the  burning  bush  and  the  fiery  pillar  are  identical 
with  the  angel  of  Jehovah.  But  the  ariruments  alleged  in 
proof  are  unsatisfactory.  Moses,  it  is  said,  saw  merely  the 
burning  bush,  and  heard  the  voice  speaking  from  it.  But 
this  is  no  evidence  that  the  bush  and  the  angel  are  the  same 
thing,  for  the  narrative  does  not  tell  us  that  Moses  saw  the 
angel :  the  appearance  or  manifestation  is  the  v^^hole  trans- 
action, comprehending  the  divine  communication  made  to 
him  at  the  time.  The  latter  part  of  xiv.  19,  is  supposed  to 
be  exegetical  of  the  former,  and  to  convey  precisely  the 
same  thought.  But  this  is  assuming  the  very  point  to  be 
proved,  as  it  may,  v^ith  far  greater  probability  and  much 
more  in  accordance  with  scriptural  analogy,  be  maintained, 
that  the  removal  of  the  pillar  was  a  natural  consequence  of 
the  action  before  ascribed  to  the  being  who  is  denominated 
the  angel  of  God. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  same  language  occurs  in 
Num.  xxii.,  where  the  narrative  of  Balaam's  journey  from 
Mesopotamia  to  the  plains  of  Moab  is  narrated.  "  God's 
anger  was  kindled  because  he  went,"  and  ^' the  angel  of 
Jehovah''^  opposed  him :  v.  22  ss.  And  it  is  particularly  re- 
markable, that,  at  the  end  of  the  interview,  the  angel  declares 
himself  to  be  the  author  of  the  communication  which  Ba- 
laam was  to  make:  "the  angel  of  Jehovah  said  unto  Bahiam, 
go  with  the  men ;  but  only  the  word  that  /shall  speak  unto 
thee,  that  thou  shalt  speak,"  v.  35.  In  the  account  which 
follows,  "  God,"  "  Jehovah,"  is  said  to  "  meet  Balaam  ; "  Je- 
hovah puts  a  word  in  his  mouth,  and  the  communications 
made  to  Balak  are  invariably  ascribed  to  a  divine  origin. 

Maimonides,  in  his  More  Nevochim,  Part  II.  chap.  42, 
fol.  56,  Berlin  edition,  p.  310,  Buxtorf's  Translation,  con- 
siders the   circumstance  narrated   in  Num.  xxii.  as   having 

o 

taken  place  in  prophetic  vision  ;  ri&^li^n  rii^"*l^i.     In  this 
view  Dathe  acquiesces.     Dr.  Palfrey,  in  his  woi'k  before  re- 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  27J 

ferred  to,  supposes  Balaam  to  be  relating  to  the  mes- 
sengers of  Baiak  the  substance  of  a  divine  communica- 
tion which  he  pretended  to  have  received  in  a  dream, 
in  which  Jehovah  had  consented  to  his  making  the  wished- 
for  journey.  Respecting  these  view^s  of  the  transaction,  my 
present  purpose  merely  allows  me  to  remark,  that  they  are 
evidently  at  variance  with  the  plain  meaning  of  the  chapter,, 
which  exhibits  what  took  place  after  Balaam  had  com- 
menced his  journey.  Comp.  v.  21,  with  the  subsequent  nar- 
ration, from  which  it  is  plain  that  Balaam  is  not  relating  a 
dream.  Thus,  also,  was  the  narrative  understood  by  the 
apostle  St.  Peter.  2  Pet.  ii.  16.*  Dr.  Palfrey  imagines  Ba- 
laam to  tell  the  princes  of  Moab,  that  "  after  persisting,  in 
his  dream,  in  the  attempt  to  visit  Balak,  he  heard  himself 
addressed  hij  Jehovah's  angel,  who  saw  how  determined  he 
was,  with  permission  to  prosecute  his  journey."  p.  383. 
Both  Balaam  and  the  messengers  of  Balak  arc  consequently 
supposed  to  consider  Jehovah's  angel  as  a  real  personage. 
On  the  Doctor's  theory,  then,  this  view  of  the  personality  of 
this  agent  is,  at  least,  as  ancient  as  the  time  of  Moses.  The 
question  of  its  origination  is  worthy  of  his  consideration. 

(82.)  Lot's  offer  of  his  two  daughters  as  a  substitute  for 
his  guests,  is  not  to  be  mentioned  except  in  terms  of  the 
strongest  reprobation.  Viewed  in  any  light,  it  was  an  un- 
pardonable violation  of  duty.  The  fact  that  the  sacred 
writers  relate  matters  of  this  sort,  and  such  as  are  mentioned 
towards  the  end  of  the  chapter,  respecting  their  most  dis- 
tinguished characters,  is  one  among  the  many  internal  proofs 
of  the  correctness  of  their  accounts.  The  sacredness  of  the 
rites  of  hospitality,  and  the  very  low  estimate  in  which  the 

*  1  am  aware  that  the  genuineness  of  this  epistle  has  been  denied ; 
but  I  think  on  grounds  entirely  insufficient.  Its  authenticity  is  quite 
susceptible  of  proof. 


272  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [paKT  vil. 

female  character  was  held  in  ancient  times,  and,  it  may  rea- 
sonably be  supposed,  particularly  in  so  dissolute  a  place  as 
Sodom,  may  be  pleaded  in  palliation  of  this  abominable  offer. 
The  host  would  feel  his  honor  to  be  implicated,  and,  lest  his 
guests  should  suspect  him  of  treachery,  would  endeavor,  by 
making  the  most  unreasonable  and  even  outrageous  propo- 
sition, to  assure  them  of  his  sincerity.  Distracted  too  by 
various  emotions.  Lot  may  have  been  hardly  conscious  of 
what  he  was  saying,  the  violence  of  his  feelings  suggesting 
the  most  extravagant  declaration  ;  as  was  afterwards  the 
case  with  Reuben,  when  he  endeavored  to  reconcile  his 
father  to  Benjamin's  accompanying  his  brothers  to  Egypt, 
by  offering  his  own  two  sons  to  be  slain  by  their  grand- 
father, if  he  did  not  bring  back  the  favorite.  Gen.  xlii.  37. 
Besides,  as  the  narrative  shows  that  the  family  of  Lot  had 
formed  alliances  in  Sodom,  which  no  doubt  were  with  the 
most  distinguished  among  its  citizens,  he  would  most  proba- 
bly presume,  that  the  men  would  not  dare  to  incur  the  ven- 
gence  to  which  the  acceptance  of  such  an  offer  would  expose 
them.  This  consideration  will  derive  additional  force,  if  it 
be  granted  that  the  two  daughters  mentioned  in  the  text 
(v.  8,)  are  the  same  as  those  who  are  spoken  of  in  the 
fourteenth  verse.  Their  being  said  to  be  "married"  involves 
no  great  difficulty,  as  this  may  express  their  betrothed  state, 
and  their  accepted  suitors  may  be  called  Lot's  "  sons-in- 
law."  And  the  words  of  the  next  verse,  "  thy  two  daugh- 
ters which  are  here,"  does  not  prove  that  they  had  sisters 
living  elsewhere  with  their  husbands.  However  this  may 
be,  it  is  certain  that  Lot's  domestic  connexion  with  some  of 
the  families  of  Sodom,  may  have  induced  him  to  believe 
that  his  offer  would  be  rejected. 

(83.)  The  expression  "  brimstone  and  fire,"  denotes  light- 
ning producing  sulphuric  streams.    Comp.  Ps.  xi.  C,  where 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  273 

the  language  is  evidently  fornned  on  the  narrative  of  this 
overthrow.  See  also  Ezek.  xxxviii.  22.  From  the  four- 
teenth chapter  it  appears,  that  "  the  vale  of  Siddim,"  in 
which  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  were  situated,  (compare  v.  10 
with  V.  3,)  abounded  with  bituminous  pits.  The  word  ren- 
dered "slime"  in  our  translation,  is  used  to  express  some 
cohesive  substance ;  that,  for  instance,  which  served  to  ce- 
ment the  bricks  of  which  the  tower  of  Babel  was  built, 
xi.  3,  and  to  coat  the  ark  of  rushes  in  which  the  infant 
Moses  was  placed:  Ex.  ii.  3,  where  it  is  used  in  connexion' 
with  "  pitch."  It  is,  therefore,  very  suitable  to  express  th^ 
nature  of  bitumen;  and  the  name  "lacus  Asphaltites,"  which 
is  sometimes  applied  to  the  Dead  Sea,  evidently  alludes  to 
this  property  of  the  soil.  Of  course,  so  combustible  a  sub- 
stance would  be  readily  enkindled  by  the  lightning ;  and  if, 
as  some  writers  have  conjectured,  the  country  contained 
streams  of  Naphtha,  the  effect  would  be  accelerated.  The 
current  of  the  Jordan,  filling  up  the  chasm  which  the  burn-" 
ing  of  the  bituminous  substance  must  have  occasioned,  would 
form  a  lake.  See  a  dissertation  on  the  subject  of  the  over-' 
throw  of  Sodom  and  the  other  cities,  in  the  Bible  de  Vencc, 
Tom.  I.  p.  593  ss. 

The  expression  in  the  text,  "  the  Lord  rained — ^from  the 
Lord"  is  Hebraistic  for, 'the  Lord  rained  from  himself.'  The 
noun  is  used  where  most  other  languages  would  employ  the 
pronoun.  The  same  idiom  occurs  in  1  Kings  viii.  1,  "So- 
lomon assembled  the  elders — unto  king  Solomon  ;"  also,  in 
Isa.  vii.  11,  "  the  Lord  spake  unto  Ahaz,  saying,  ask  a  sign 
of  the  Lord  ;"  in  Matt.  xii.  26,  "  if  Satan  cast  out  Satan  ;" 
and  in  various  other  places.  It  may  be  said,  that,  according 
to  this  view,  the  second  noun,  or  the  pronoun  which  would 
denote  it,  is  inexplicable,  as  it  cannot  refer  to  the  apparent' 
source  of  the  destructive  flame,  that  being  denoted  by  the 
phrase,  "  out  of  heaven."  Hengstenberg  assumes  that  this*- 
85 


274  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vil. 

phrase  and  the  other  "  from  himself"  are  "  of  the  same  im- 
port." Ubi  sup.  p.  220,  Keith's  Translation,  p.  165.  It  must 
be  granted  to  be  unnecessary  ;  but  it  is  far  from  being  inex- 
plicable, such  pleonasms  being  very  frequent.  Compare 
sv  savTu  in  John  vi.  61,  xi.  38.  It  is  possible  that  the  pleo- 
nastic form  may  be  used  to  express  more  strongly  the  idea, 
that  this  destructive  element  was  sent  and  directed  by  the 
Lord.     Compare  the  phrase  "life  in  himself"  in  John  v.  26. 

(84.)  As  salt  i«  sometimes  used  to  express  perpetuity,  it 
has  been  suggested  that  the  phrase  "  pillar  of  salt,"  may  be 
equivalent  to  '  a  perpetual  pillar,'  '  a  standing  monument.' 
Num.  xviii.  19,  and  2  Chron.  xiii.  5,  are  appealed  to  in  de- 
fence of  this  supposition ;  but  without  success,  as  in  both 
instances  oD"]^  is  added,  and  the  phrase  '  a  covenant  of  salt' 
is  founded  on  the  usage  of  eating  salt  together  as  a  token  of 
friendship,  and  denotes  perpetuity,  inviolable  character.  See 
Mne'id  XII.  173,  "dant  fruges  maribus  salsas;"  and  compare 
Parkhurst's  Hebrew  Lexicon,  under  nb)2  II.,  and  Suicer's 
Thesaurus  Ecclesiasticus,  under  aXac  II.  A. — Dathe  trans- 
lates nb)0  ^"^^5  TlvlT  thus :  "in  solo  salsuglnoso  haesit  in- 
fixa."  No  doubt  the  ground  itself  might  be  called  saline, 
but  the  close  connexion  between  !n''55  and  Hj^  and  the 
omission  of  the  preposition,  make  it  more  probable  that  the 
former  word  is  in  construction  with  the  latter.  Lot's  wife 
being  suffocated,  her  person  probably  became  gradually  indu- 
rated and  encrusted  by  the  floating  vapor.  "  Fragments 
of  fossil  salt  in  various  forms  are  found  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
Dead  Sea,"*  some  one  of  which,  no  doubt  Josephus  mistook 
for  this  pillar,  when  he  supposed  himself  to  have  seen  it. 

*    See   the   authorities   referred   to   in   Robinson's   Gesenius,   under 
S^^D  2. 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  275 

See  his  Antiquities,  Lib,  I.  cap.  xi.  §  4. — Other  views  of 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  pillar  of  salt,"  may  be  seen  in 
Suicer,  ubi  sup.,  B. 

(85.)  The  ingenious  conjecture  of  Michaelis,  that  a  part 
of  Lot's  flock  may  have  been  with  their  attendants  in  some 
district  sufficiently  remote  from  the  scene  of  destruction  to 
escape  being  involved  in  the  ruin,  is  very  probable.  Had 
he  sustained  the  loss  of  all  his  effects,  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  he  would  have  resorted  to  Abraham,  his  noble- 
hearted  and  affectionate  kinsman,  between  whom  and  him- 
self, we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  any  other  feelings  than 
those  of  kindness  and  regard  subsisted.  We  find  that  his 
daughters  were  able  to  procure  wine  ;  and,  as  it  is  difficult 
to  suppose  that  they  would  have  ventured  to  do  what  is  re- 
lated in  the. text,  unless  they  hoped  to  deceive  their  father 
into  the  belief  of  their  being  other  women,  it  is  likely  that 
they  were  not  the  only  female  inmates  of  the  cave.  Exces- 
sive, indeed,  must  have  been  Lot's  want  of  consciousness, 
on  the  opposite  supposition.  The  language  of  the  elder 
daughter  to  her  sister  in  v.  31,  only  shows  that  she  appre- 
hended all  the  men  of  that  region  to  have  been  destroyed ; 
an  opinion  perhaps  hastily  formed,  and  suggested  by  the 
terrific  nature  of  the  catastrophe.  Indeed,  she  may  have 
supposed  her  father,  like  a  second  Noah,  to  be  the  only  male 
survivor  of  the  conflagration,  and  that  the  earth  was  again 
to  be  peopled  from  one  family.  These  are  considerations 
which  may  serve  in  some  degree  to  palliate  the  flagrant 
enormity. — Moab  implies  that  the  child  owed  its  birth  to 
her  father.  For  the  composition  of  the  word,  see  Gesenius 
under  i2>5i?a  and  '^^.  Ben-Ammi,  ''^5'"']!?,  is  literally,  'son 
of  my  people.'  It  denotes  that  the  child  was  born  of  the 
mother's  own  stock,  without  intercourse  with  one  of  any 
other  line. 


276  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part   vh. 

(80.)  From  the  similarity  of  the  leading  circumstances  in 
this  chapter  with  those  in  xii.  10—20,  it  has  been  conjec- 
tured, that  both  these  portions  of  the  history  are  founded  on 
the  same  fact.  It  must  be  acknowledged  to  be  very  re- 
ipiarkable,  that  two  events  so  strikingly  alike  should  have  oc- 
,-curred  in  Abraham's  life.  But,  if  these  portions  of  the  book 
of  Genesis  are  both  genuine,  (and  not  a  particle  of  proof  to 
the  contrary  exists,  unless  the  improbability  of  the  case  be 
assumed  as  evidence,)  it  is  impossible  to  explain  them  in  re- 
ference to  the  same  occurrence  ;  unless,  indeed,  it  could  be  • 
allowed,  against  all  reasonable  evidence,  that  gross  corrup- 
iions  exist  in  one  or  other  of  the  accounts. 

The  supposition,  appearing  in  both  the  narratives,  on 
which  danger  is  apprehended,  is  that  of  Sarah's  beauty.  What 
is  said  in  xvii.  17,  xviii.  11,  12,  contains  nothing  which  is  ne- 
,C6ssarily  at  variance  with  this  idea.  Women  are  some- 
times to  be  met  with  of  sufficient  age  to  be  in  the  situation 
in  which  she  is  described  in  the  texts  referred  to,  who  are 
yet  imposing  and  even  beautiful  in  appearance.  It  is  not 
unnatural,  therefore,  that,  in  those  days,  when  the  freshness 
,of  youth  was  doubtless  proportioned  to  the  length  of  life, 
and  the  mode  of  living  was  natural  and  simple,  a  woman 
of  distinguished  beauty  should  preserve  some  of  her  charms 
even  to  a  late  period  of  life.  It  ought  also  to  be  considered, 
that  the  attractions  of  a  foreign  lady,  even  if  they  had  be- 
come somewhat  diminished,  may  well  be  supposed  sufficient 
to  make  an  impression  on  an  eastern  prince,  satiated,  it  may 
be,  with  indulgence  in  native  beauty. 

It  is  objected,  that  the  event  occurs  twice  in  the  life  of 
Abraham,  (xii.  xx.,)  and  that  a  similar  circumstance  is  re- 
lated of  Isaac,  (xxvi.  6 — 10 ;)  that  Gerar,  the  name  of  the 
theatre  of  action,  and  Abimelech,  that  of  the  party  con- 
,cerned,  are  the  same  in  the  latter  case  of  the  father,  and  in 
^hat  of  the  son.     But,  if  such  a  brutal  attack  on  private 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    OENESIS.  27T 

rights  may  be  supposed  to  have  once  taken  place,  it  will 
surely  be  difficult  to  say  why,  under  similar  circumstances, 
a  similar  attack  may  not  have  been  made  more  than  once. 
With  respect  to  Isaa-c,  however,  this  was  not  the  case. 
-The  narrative  merely  states  his  apprehension  ;  but  it  does 
not  appear  that  the  anticipated  evil  did  actually  occur.  The 
king  of  the  country  protected  the  daughter-in-law  of  Abra- 
ham, xxvi.  7 — 11. 

Abimelech  was  probably  the  common  name  of  those 
kings,  as  Pharaoh  was  of  the  Egyptian  monarchs ;  and 
Phichol,  (DlD^il  '  mouth  of  all,')  may  also  have  been  an  ap- 
pellation borne  in  common  by  the  royal  "  captain,"  the  com- 
mander of  all,  their  spokesman  also,  bringing  their  petitions 
to  the  king.     Compare  xxvi.  26,  with  xxi.  22. 

Respecting  the  narrative  in  the  chapter  before  us,  it  may  be 
remarked,  however,  that  there  is  really  nothing  in  the  context 
which  obliges  us  to  place  the  event  after  those  related  in  the 
previous  chapter.    The  expression  "from  thence"  in  v.  1,  car- 
ries us  back  to  the  "place"  of  Abraham's  residence,  (xviii.  33,) 
which  we  know  to  have  been  among  the  oaks  of  Mamre, 
where  he  had  dwelt  since  the   settlement  of  Lot  in  Sodom. 
Compare  xviii.  1,  xiv.  13,  and  xiii.  18.     Consequently  it  only 
proves  the  event  related  to  have  occurred  during  some  period 
•of  the  time  that  Abraham  resided  in  this  place.    Further  still, 
there  is  plain   proof,  that  it  could  not  have  occurred  after 
the  facts  immediately  before  related.     The  birth  of  Lot's 
two  sons,  (xix.  37,  38,)  must  have   been  at  least  nearly  a 
year  after  the  promise  repeated  to   Abraham   in  xviii.  10, 
which,  in  all  probability,  was  verified  about  a  year  after  it 
was  made.     If,  therefore,  the  removal  to  Gerar  took  place 
after  Lot's  sons  were   born,  it  must  have   been  nearly  con- 
temporaneous with  Isaac's  birth,  which  is  contradicted  by 
all  the  circumstances  of  the  case.     If  it  be  supposed  to  have 
been  contemporaneous  with  Lot's  leaving  Zoar,  and  taking 


278  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vii. 

up  his  abode  in  the  cave,  and  thus  but  a  short  time  after  the 
promise  just  referred  to,  still  the  difficulties  will  be  inexpli- 
cable ;  for  what  is  said  in  v.  17,  18,  imply  that  some  con- 
siderable time  must  have  elapsed,  in  order  to  satisfy  the 
Philistine  family  both  of  the  infliction  and  of  its  removal. 
But  this  would  oblige  us  to  allow  that  in  the  meanwhile 
Isaac  was  born,  which  we  know  was  not  the  case.  Besides, 
the  great  age  of  Sarah  (xviii.  ll,xvii.  17,)  makes  it  alto- 
gether improbable,  that  even  her  personal  beauty  could 
have  been  so  great  as  to  attract  the  king's  attention,  which 
the  eleventh  verse  clearly  enough  intimates  was  the  result 
that  Abraham  feared.  On  the  whole,  it  is  best  to  admit  that 
this  account  is  not  in  chronological  order,  and  that  the  oc- 
currence took  place  at  a  much  earlier  period  than  the  con- 
nexion would  lead  us  to  suppose. 

(87.)  Verse  7 :  "  he  is  a  prophet."  The  proper  and  pro- 
bably original  meaning  of  this  word  is,  '  one  who  speaks  as 
God's  substitute  or  ambassador.'  Thus,  in  Exod.  vii.  1,  it  is 
said,  "  I  have  made  thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh,  and  Aaron  shall 
be  thy  prophet;"  of  which  the  language  in  iv.  16,  is  ex- 
planatory :  "  he  shall  be  thy  spokesman  unto  the  people  : — 
he  shall  be  to  thee  instead  of  a  mouth,  and  thou  shalt  be  to 
him  instead  of  God.'^  To  the  same  purpose,  Jer.  xv.  19  : 
"  if  thou  take  forth  the  precious  from  the  vile,  thou  shalt  be 
as  my  mouth."  Among  the  Greeks  'if^o:pYjrYig  and  viro^pyjTris 
seem  to  have  been  equivalent,  'one  who  speaks  for,'  (before,) 
or  'under,'  that  is,  'in  the  place  of  another.'  See  2  Pet.  i. 
20,  21.  "Prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man; 
but  holy  men  of  eld  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost;"  and  with  this  text  compare  the  passage  from  Philo 
quoted  by  Hahn  in  his  Lehrbuch  des  Christlichen  Glaubens, 
■§  22,  Anm.  3,  p.  120,  and  also  by  Gesenius  under  5s^''55  • 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]         NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  279 

Xovvros  sTsgou.  This  is  also  a  very  usual  sense  of  the  word 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  meaning  of 'one  who  predicts 
future  events'  is  secondary.  Abraham,  therefore,  is  an- 
nounced to  Abimelech  as  a  sacred  character,  the  interpreter 
of  God,  speaking  as  his  agent. 

(88.)  The  words  of  Abimelech  to  Sarah  in  v.  16  have 
been  variously  explained.  The  use  of  the  term  '  brother' 
for  husband  is  suggested  by  the  attempted  deceit.  If  the 
pronoun  !^^!l  relate  to  Abraham,  as  Aben  Ezra  supposes,  the 
translation  will  be  as  in  the  English  version,  "  he  is  to  thee 
a  covering  of  the  eyes  unto,  (with  respect  to.)  all  who  are 
with  thee  ;"  that  is,  '  he  is  able  to  protect  thee  from  any  im- 
pertinence, to  guard  thy  modesty.'  Most  critics,  however, 
refer  it  to  the  money  just  mentioned,  the  CjtDS,  with  which  it 
agrees.  This  is  sanctioned  by  the  Septuagint  x'Xia  6i- 
S^axiJ^ci — •  TocuTa  sg-ai,  and  the  Vulgate,  "  hoc  erit."  The  Ara- 
bic also  gives  the  same  meaning,  and  most  probably  the 
Syriac.  The  sense  usually  given  is  as  follows  :  '  it  is  for  a. 
covering  of  thine  eyes ;'  it  is  intended  to  supply  you  with 
veils,  '  for  (with  a  view  to,)  all  who  are  with  you ;'  that  is, 
in  order  that  all  who  fall  in  company  with  you  may  perceive 
that  you  are  married.  It  is  further  stated,  that,  in  those  early 
times,  it  was  the  usage  for  eastern  women  who  were  married 
to  wear  veils,  perhaps  as  a  token  of  subjection,  (compare  1 
Cor.  xi.  10,  1  Pet.  iii.  5,  6,)  while  maidens  did  not  cover  the 
face.  See  xii.  14,  where  Sarah  passes  for  an  unmarried 
woman;  also  xxiv.  16,  17,  which  shows  that  Rebecca's  face 
was  then  uncovered,  (compare  xxix.  9  ss. ;)  but  when  she  is 
about  to  meet  Isaac,  v.  65,  she  puts  on  a  veil,  thus  implying 
that  she  had  become  his  wife.  The  suggestion  of  Abimelech 
is  therefore  a  delicate  reproof  of  Sarah  for  representing  her- 
self as  Abraham's  unmarried  sister. 

The   exclusive   use   of  the  veil   by  married  women  is. 


280  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vil. 

however,  confidently  denied  by  Gesenius,  (see  him  under 
rnD3,)  who  remarks,  that  "  it  is  manifestly  contrary 
to  oriental  custom,  and  is  incapable  of  proof."  He  does  not 
take  notice  of  the  texts  referred  to,  which  appear  to  favor 
the  usage  just  stated.  His  intimation,  that  one  thousand 
shekels  would  be  an  exorbitant  price  for  a  veil,  is  no  very 
strong  objection,  'as  it  need  not  be  presumed  that  the  donor 
intended  the  whole  sum  to  be  appropriated  to  the  purchase, 
but  such  a  proportion  as  might  be  necessary.  By  the  phrase 
"  covering  of  the  eyes,"  he  understands,  "  a  present  ofiered 
as  an  expiation  for  a  fault,  in  order  that  one  may  shut  his 
eyes  upon  it,  connive  at  it."  Compare  1  Sam.  xii.  3<  "  a 
bribe,  to  blind  mine  eyes  therewith  •,"  where,  although  the 
words  are  different,  the  sentiment  is  evidently  the  same. 

Mendelsohn,  in  the  HjliQ  T"''^>  gives  the  same  view  of 
the  phrase  "  covering  of  the  eyes."  His  version  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Behold,  I  have  given  thy  brother  one  thousand 
pieces  of  silver.  These  may  serve  thee  as  a  satisfaction 
[amende  honorable,)  with  respect  to  all  who  are  with  thee  ; 
but  wMth  respect  to  every  other  thou  wilt  be  defended."  The 
interpretation  of  Rabbi  Solomon  of  Dubno,  printed  in  the 
same  work,  is  to  the  same  purpose  :  "  ^^!l  (the  thing  which 
I  have  given  him  will  be)  tD"'5''3^  illDD  15  to  thee  a  cover- 
ing of  the  eyes,  (hke  uOjI  in  Prov.  xii.  IG,  that  is,  that  no 
disgrace  may  attach  to  thee  on  account  of  this,  and  it  may 
not  be  said  that  I  have  indulged  my  passion  with  thee.)  To 
all  who  are  with  thee,  (that  is,  thy  household,  or  others 
who  see  this  at  present,)  [he  means  who  are  witnesses  of 
this  satisfaction ;]  and  with  all,  (that  is,  but  with  all  the  men 
who  have  not  seen  the  honorable  satisfaction  which  I  have 
been  obliged  to  make  thee,  i^!^%■l,  the  1  has  the  sense  of  hut.) 
InnDil  (thou  wilt  be  defended  by  the  men  who  have  now 
seen  thy  satisfaction,  who  will  publicly  declare  what  their 
eyes  have  seen.)    rinD5  is  benoni  feminine  Niphal,  the  proper 


CHAP.  XI,  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  281 

form  being  Hn^l!]  or  ^D^"^^*  the  patuch  being  employed  on 
account  of  the  guttural,  as  in  il^'ll^,  the  _  at  the  end  of  the 
verse  being  changed  into  ^." — The  latter  part  of  the  verse 
is  not  clear.  Dathe  reads  it,  without  regard  to  the  Athnach 
under  tjiTl^i^,  as  forming  a  connected  clause,  and  follows  the 
Septuagint  and  Syriac,  (he  says  also  the  Vulgate,  but  this  is  a 
mistake,)  in  omitting  the  vau  before  the  last  word.  He  consid- 
ers this  as  the  second  person  feminine  of  the  preterite  Niphal, 
from  n^'^^  (which,  in  that  case,  as  the  Jewish  writer  just 
quoted  remarks,  ought  to  be  written  tin?5l,)  and  gives  it 
the  same  meaning  as  it  would  have  in  the  Hiphil  or  Hith- 
pael,  *  to  show'  or  '  show  one's  self.'  The  result  affords  a 
very  clear  and  intelligible  sense,  thus  :  '  that  to  all  who  are 
with  you  as  well  as  to  all,  (that  is,  whoever  may  see  you,) 
you  may  be  known ;'  in  other  words,  may  appear  as  a  mar- 
ried woman.  Still  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing 
from  the  masoretical  reading.  The  word  tin^ll  may  be 
the  benoni  participle,  as  Rabbi  Solomon  says,  and  may  have 
the  meaning  given  by  him.  Or  it  may  be  the  remark  of  the 
author,  and  in  immediate  connexion  with  the  two  preceding 
words.  In  either  case,  the  1  is  pleonastic,  as  is  not  unusual. 
Thus  the  meaning  will  be :  '  and  in  al!,'  that  is,  as  to  the 
whole  matter,  the  attempted  deceit,  '  she  was  reproved,'  or 
convicted  and  silenced. 

(89.)  The  conduct  of  Abraham  in  this  affair,  and  also  in 
that  before  related,  chap,  xii.,  as  well  as  that  of  Isaac  after- 
wards mentioned,  xxvi.  7  ss.,  is  not  to  be  vindicated,  how- 
ever easy  it  may  be  to  suggest  considerations  of  a  palliative 
kind.  The  want  of  entire  reliance  on  divine  Providence 
must  be  acknowledged;  bui  that  man  must  be  very  ignorant 
of  his  own  heart,  who  does  not  feel  that  the  frailty  of  na- 
ture would,  in  most  minds,  have  suggested  some  expedient 
36 


282  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  viu 

equally  unwarranted.  It  is  possible  that  both  these  patri- 
archs may  have  resorted  to  a  false  representation  with  the 
view  of  preventing  an  attack  immediately  on  their  arrival, 
trusting  at  the  same  time  to  favorable  circumstances  for 
disclosing  the  real  truth  of  the  case.  It  may  have  been 
their  object  to  anticipate  immediate  assault  and  outrage,  and 
their  hope  to  prevent  any  alliance  by  a  timely  representa- 
tion of  the  real  connexion.  The  behaviour  of  Abimelech 
is  in  part  laudable,  and  in  part  otherwise.  He  did  not 
know  the  relationship  of  Sarah  to  Abraham,  and  he  imme- 
diately complies  with  the  divine  direction  to  restore  her. 
If  then  it  should  be  asked,  wherein  lay  the  justice  of 
punishing  him  by  afflicting  his  family,  and  also  hiniself  ;*  it 
may  be  replied,  that  the  mere  fact  of  his  taking  Sarah  was 
culpable,  inasmuch  as  it  was  an  unwarranted  aggression  on 
the  rights  of  the  traveller  ;  and,  as  it  is  not  to  be  imagined 
that  Abraham  would  have  voluntarily  surrendered  his  sup- 
posed sister,  it  was  also  an  act  of  violence.  The  language 
of  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth,  and  the  former  of  the  sixth 
verses,  must  be  explained  by  the  immediately  preceding 
context:  Abimelech's  "integrity  and  innocence"  are  granted 
so  far  as  regards  an  intention  of  depriving  the  patriarch  of 
his  wife,  and  therefore,  the  mercy  of  God  providentially  in- 
terposes to  prevent  farther  criminality ;  but  his  conduct  in 
seizing  her  at  all  still  makes  him  censurable. 

(90.)  The  word  rendered  "  mocking"  in  v.  9,  is  derived 
from  the  same  root  as  the  name  Isaac,  and  might  be  ren- 
dered '  laughing  at.'  The  same  verb  is  elsewhere  used  to 
express  the  grossest  insult,  as  in  the  false  accusation  of 
Potiphar's  wife,  xxxix.  14,  17,  "the  Hebrew  servant  came 

*  It  is  clear  from  v.  17,  that  some  personal  affliction  had  fallen  on 
Abimelech ;  perhaps  sickness  of  some  sort.  Compare  v.  3,  4,  first 
clause,  with  the  latter  lialf  of  the  6th. 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]         NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  283 

m  unto  me  to  mock  me."  Some  old  Jewish  authorities 
speak  of  Sarah's  ha^'ing  observed  in  Ishmael  a  disposition  to 
idolatry  and  various  vices.  (See  Fagius  and  Drusius  in 
ioc.)  But  this  is  only  a  Rabbinical  fiction.  Acacius,  quoted 
by  the  latter  commentator,  suggests  whether  the  word 
pn!^)2  ma}'-  not  mean  '  fighting  with  and  persecuting,'  as  in 
2  Sam.  ii.  14.  But  here  th>.'  vooi  is  pHtO,  (although  it  is 
most  likely  that  both  roots  are  of  the  same  origin.)  and  the 
context  shows  the  nature  oi  the  sport  or  "  play,"  to  use  the 
word  of  our  own  version,  that  Joab  meant.  Besides,  the 
supposition  of  personal  violence  in  the  case  of  Ishmael  and 
Isaac,  is  wholly  out  of  the  question.  Something  insulting, 
and  perhaps  malicious  and  infidel,  is  ail  that  the  word  in  this 
connexion  will  bear.  "  He  did  not  merely  laugh,"  says 
Hengstenberg,  (Authentic,  I.  p.  276,)  "  he  made  himself 
merry.  The  little  helpless  Isaac,  a  father  of  nations  !  Un- 
belief, jealousy,  pride,  led  him  to  this  behaviour.  Want  of 
faith  made  it  appear  to  him  ridiculous,  to  connect  such  great 
results  with  such  a  feeble  cause."  Neither  does  the  use 
which  St.  Paul,  in  Gal.  iv.  22  ss.,  makes  of  the  facts  here  re- 
lated require  any  stronger  meaning.  He  may  well  apply 
the  term  "  persecution,"  v.  29,  to  such  conduct,  particularly 
as  he  compares  it  with  the  treatment  to  which  the  true 
Christians  of  his  day  were  subjected,  by  the  advocates  for 
the  outward  Jewish  ceremonial  in  opposition  to  its  spiritual 
import. 

It  has  often  been  objected  to  this  narrative,  that  Abra- 
ham's conduct  towards  Hagar  and  Ishmael  was  unfeeling, 
unworthy  alike  of  a  kind  master  and  an  affectionate  father, 
both  which  characters  his  history  in  general  represents  him 
as  sustaining  in  a  very  high  degree.  In  reply  it  may  be 
said,  that  the  patriarch  himself  was  greatly  distressed  at  the 
thought  of  complying  with  his  wife's  wishes,  and  his  con- 
sent was  gained  only  in  consequence  of  a  divine  direction ; 


284  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vii. 

that  the  melancholy  condition  of  Hagar  and  Ishmael  in  the 
wilderness  was  owing  to  unforeseen  and  fortuitous  circum- 
stances ;  that  the  providence  of  God  had  in  view  the  sepa- 
ration of  Isaac  and  his  family  from  Ishmael  and  his  connex- 
ions, (compare  xxv.  6,)  to  preserve  the  promised  race  as  a 
distinct  body,  in  order  to  carry  into  effect  the  plan  which  he 
had  formed  ;  and  that  the  occurrences  here  mentioned  had 
a  direct  tendency  to  form  the  character  of  Ishmael  and  his 
posterity,  leading  to  their  national  distinction,  and  were 
therefore  ultimately  beneficial  to  him.  That  he  was  con- 
sequently forever  afterwards  excluded  from  intercourse 
with  his  father's  family,  is  neither  stated  in  the  history,  nor 
reasonable  in  itself.  The  fact  that  he  united  with  Isaac  in 
the  last  honors  paid  to  Abraham's  body,  (xxv.  9,)  affords 
presumptive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  and  favorable  to  the 
opinion  that  the  two  brothers  lived  in  harmony.  This  de- 
fence, it  can  hardly  be  questioned,  is  sufficiently  satis- 
factory. 

There  is,  however,  another  consideration  which  appears  to 
me  to  afford  an  additional  reason  for  the  conduct  of  divine 
Providence  as  here  exhibited.  St.  Paul,  as  above  referred 
to,  teaches  us  that  the  facts  here  related  were  intended  to 
convey  allegorical  instruction.  The  words,  v.  24,  octivo,  i&nv 
dXXriyo^oufAsva,  are  no  doubt  incorrectly  rendered  in  our  ver- 
sion, "  which  things  are  an  allegory,"  for  the  Greek  will  not 
allow  such  a  translation,  nor  does  the  idea  which  it  most 
naturally  suggests  meet  with  any  encouragement  from  the 
author's  writings.  The  apostle  never  represents  the  his- 
torical facts  of  the  Old  Testament  as  allegories.  But  it  is 
equally  clear,  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  does  represent  the 
facts  under  consideration  as  designed,  in  the  same  manner 
as  parables,  to  convey  religious  instruction.  Some  com- 
rnentators  have  indeed  resorted  to  the  convenient  hypothesis 
jOf  accommodation  to  the  allegorical  method  of  interpreta- 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]         NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  285 

tion,  which,  they  say,  was  then  prevalent  among  the  Jews. 
A  few,  allowing  that  this  is  not  in  character  with  St.  Paul's 
ordinary  mode  of  instruction,  are  of  opinion,  that  he  does 
himself  intimate  to  the  reader  his  intention  of  accommo- 
dating to  the  Jewish  usage,  in  the  application  which  he  is 
about  to  make  of  the  facts  immediately  recounted.  This  inti, 
mation  is,  they  think,  conveyed  in  the  twentieth  verse,  where 
he  expresses  his  "desire  to  change  his  voice,"  that  is,  to  alter 
his  general  method  of  instruction,  or  to  adapt  himself  to  each 
one's  thought  and  feeling,  thus  condescending  to  the  erroneous 
use  of  allegory,  in  accommodation  to  their  Jewish  weakness 
and  prejudice.  See  Hahn's  Lehrbuch,  §  14,  Amm.  2,  p. 
65  ;  and  his  treatise  on  the  Grammatico-Historical  Interpre- 
tation of  the  Scriptures,  published  in  the  Biblical  Reposi- 
tory, Vol.  I.  No.  I.  p.  133.  That  this  view  of  the  clause  is 
forced  and  unnatural,  will  be  granted  by  almost  every 
candid  mind.  The  apostle's  question  in  v.  21,  "  do  ye  ngt 
hear  the  law  ?"  '  do  ye  not  perceive  and  attend  to  what  the 
scripture  itself  intimates  V  evidently  shows,  that  he  not  only 
considered  the  instruction  which  he  was  about  to  convey  as 
implied  in  the  facts  recorded,  but  that  his  readers  might 
themselves  have  drawn  from  the  record  some  such  instruc- 
tion. In  a  word,  he  considers  Sarah  and  her  son  as  prefi- 
gurative  of  the  Christian  church  and  its  spiritual  members, 
while  Hagar  and  Ishmael  represent  the  Jewish  community 
devoted  to  an  external  religion,  characterized  by  elementary 
principles,  mere  rites  and  ceremonies  of  a  fleshly  nature. 
If  then  it  be  allowed  that  this  is  the  true  view  of  the  case, 
and  if  the  facts  here  stated  were  intended  to  be  emblematic 
of  what  was  afterwards  to  exist  under  the  Gospel,  the  vast 
importance  of  the  things  adumbrated  affords  an  additional 
reason  why  divine  wisdom  should  allow  the  influence  of 
Sarah's  feelings  to  lead  to  the  expulsion  of  Ishmael  and  his 
mother,  with  the  whole  train  of  occurrences  that  followed 


286  NOTES    TO    GENESIS. 


[part  VII. 


it.  Such  a  view  of  the  facts  is  in  harmony  with  the  scrip, 
tural  representation  of  the  connexion  of  the  old  and  new 
covenants,  which  is  illustrated  by  the  doctrine  that  the  one 
was  intended  to  be  symbolical  of  the  other, 

'  (91.)  The  word  tjb'dri,  rendered  "  she  cast,"  may  possi- 
bly express  the  wretched  mother's  despair,  as  if  in  frenzied 
agony  she  had  thrown  oft'  from  her  the  son  of  her  love. 
jThis  would  not  be  unnatural.  But  it  does  not  require  such 
a  meaning.  It  is  used  by  Reuben  when  he  proposes  to  put 
Joseph  into  a  pit,  while  at  the  same  time  he  is  planning  his 
safety  ;  xxxvii.  22.  Neither  in  this  verse  nor  in  the  twenty- 
fourth,  where  it  occurs  again,  can  it  fairly  require  any  strong- 
er meaning  than  placed  or  put.  In  the  first  and  last  of 
these  three  passages,  the  Septuagint  has  £f5''4'S  and  s^^i%j^av, 
I  and  in  the  second,  sixl3aXk£TS.  But  neither  do  these  words 
necessarily  imply  force,  as  is  plain  from  Matt.  ix.  38,  xv.  30. 
The  text  simply  states  that  Hagar  laid  her  exhausted  child 
on  the  ground. 

(92.)  The  Septuagint  renders  the  Hebrew  v-^riXYiv^  lofty, 
considering  the  word  probably  as  derived  from  Jllii^'l 
to  see.  To  the  same  purpose  Aquila,  xaTacpavr},  and  perhaps 
Symmachus,  Tvjj:  h'Kra.alac.,  followed  by  the  Vulgate,  terram 
visionis ;  although  it  is  not  improbable  that  these  terms  are 
in  allusion  to  the  name  given  to  the  place  by  Abraham.  See 
v.  14.  The  Syriac  translator  appears  to  have  read  a  dif- 
ferent text,  for  he  renders  it,  "  the  land  of  the  Amorites." 
It  is  no  doubt  the  name  of  that  region  of  country,  on  a  part 
of  which  the  temple  was  afterwards  built.  See  2  Chron.  iii. 
1.  This  may  perhaps  account  for  the  remarkable  version 
found  in  the  Chaldee,  and  Arabic,  both  of  which  have  '  the 

land  of  worship ;'  i^^H^q^  5<:^1i^,  sSCjeJljCG- 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  287 

(93.)  The  preparation  of  the  wood,  and  the  transportation 
of  it  to  such  a  distance,  seems  at  first  view  a  very  unneces- 
sary inconvenience,  as  Abraham  might  reasonably  expect 
to  find  fuel  at  the  appointed  place.  Perhaps  it  was  done 
that  the  wood  might  be  dry.  Perhaps,  too,  it  was  usual  to 
prepare  the  fuel  used  on  sacrificial  occasions  in  some  par- 
ticular wav.  The  Jews,  durins:  the  time  of  the  second 
temple,  were  very  careful  to  procure  clean  wood,  and  there- 
fore priests,  who  on  examination  were  discovered  to  have 
any  blemish,  were  set  to  remove  the  worms  that  might  be 
found  in  it,  and  rooms  connected  wi'iS  the  court  of  the 
women  were  appropriated  to  this  purpose.  See  Light- 
foot's  Temple  Service,  chap,  xviii.  2,  Works,  Vol.  I.  fol.  p. 
1093,  London,  1684.  It  is  very  probable  that  even  the  cere- 
monial of  sacrifice  was  observed,  in  this  early  period,  with 
great  regard  to  circumstance,  hov/ever  unimportant  in 
itself. 

(94.)  The  la/iguage  of  the  fifth  verse  is  worthy  of  more 
than  ordinary  attention.  Is  it  the  language  of  deceit  ? 
Under  circumstances  of  such  appalling  interest,  docs  the 
patriarch  assure  his  servants  that  he  and  his  son  woulci  re- 
turn to  them  when  the  act  of  worship  was  over,  while  at 
the  same  time  he  expected  to  leave  the  bones  of  his  son  Isaac 
on  the  altar  from  which  the  smoke  of  his  sacrificed  body 
had  ascended  1  I  think  not.  Surely  this  is  the  language  of 
faith :  Abraham  is  persuaded  that,  in  some  way  or  other, 
Jehovah  would  interpose  to  prevent  the  final  loss  of  his  son, 
through  whom  alone  the  divine  promises  could  be  rafified. 
And  the  same  faith  prompts  the  reply  in  the  eighth  verse. 
That  he  did  cherish  such  a  persuasion,  is  a  result  to  which 
we  are  led  solely  fi-om  the  narrative.  Either  he  believed 
that  his  God  would  interpose  and  prevent  the  sacrifice ;  or 
he  expected  that  he  would  raise  to  life  again  the  victim, 


288  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vii. 

should  he  choose  to  hisist  upon  the  offering.  The  remark 
of  the  inspired  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  "  rea- 
soning (koyi(faixswg,)  that  God  was  able  to  raise  up  even 
from  the  dead,"  xi.  19,  is  in  favor  of  the  latter  supposition. 
And  this  coincides  with  the  opinion,  supported  by  indirect 
evidence  of  very  early  antiquity  derived  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  from  other  sources,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection,  or  union  of  soul  and  body  after  death,  was 
known  and  cherished  by  the  patriarchs.  The  striking  pas- 
sage in  Job  xix.  23 — 27,  which  has  so  often  been  appealed 
to  on  this  subject,  is  of  itself  satisfactory  evidence. 

(95.)  Borger,  in  the  work  before  referred  to,  p.  135,  ad- 
duces the  account  of  the  offering  of  Isaac  as  a  proof  that 
the  patriarch  claimed  unlimited  power  over  his  son's  life. 
But  this  cannot  be  supported.  It  is  impossible,  indeed,  to 
ascertain  what  was  Isaac's  age  at  this  period  ;  but  the  nar- 
rative contains  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  opinion,  that  in 
consequence  of  representations  made  by  his  father,  he  vol- 
untarily submitted  to  the  divine  requisition.  And  as  no 
time  seems  more  favorable  for  such  a  disclosure  than  that  in 
which  the  inquiry  was  made,  we  may  reasonably  presume 
it  to  have  been  then  communicated. 

(96.)  The  name  given  to  the  place  no  doubt  refers  to  the 
reply  of  Abraham  to  his  son.  Compare  v.  8  and  14.  In 
the  latter  112)^^  '  which,'  is  used  for  Itpiil^  *  as,'  as  in  Jer. 
xxxiii.  22,  and  elsewhere  ;  and  the  particle  of  comparison  H) 
seems  to  be  omitted  before  '^t]'2,  agreeably  to  ordinary 
usage,  of  which  we  have  a  striking  instance  in  Ps.  cxxxix. 
15,  "I  was  made  in  secret,  and  curiously  wrought  (as)  in  the 
lowest  parts  of  the  earth."  According  to  the  Rabbinical 
punctuation,  to  vary  from  which  no  good  reason  can  be  as- 
signed, the  meaning  is  as  follows:  'And  Abraham  called  the 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  11.]         NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  289 

name  of  that  place,  the  Lord  will  provide,  as  it  is  said  to- 
day, (as)  in  the  mount  of  the  Lord,  it  shall  be  provided.' 
It  would  seem  that  the  language  of  Abraham,  '  God  will 
provide,  &c.'  had  given  rise  to  a  proverb,  expressive  of  the 
Almighty's  interposition  for  the  deliverance  of  his  people  in  ^ 

difficulties.  Nothing  could  be  better  adapted  to  encourage 
such  an  expectation,  than  the  words  by  which  the  patriarch's 
faith  had  been  avowed,  when'^viewed  in  connexion  with  the 
result,  by  which  they  were  so  remarkably  verified. 

(97.)  The  infidel  objections  which  have  so  often  been 
urged  against  the  narrative  contained  in  this  chapter,  lose 
their  force,  when  the  motives  by  which  the  divine  mind  was 
influenced  are  taken  into  consideration.  The  command 
given  to  Abraham  to  ofler  up  his  son,  has  been  appealed  to, 
in  order  to  prove  that  human  sacrifices  are  recognized  in  the 
narrative  as  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God.  But  such  an  in- 
ference is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  whole  revealed  law, 
and  the  result  in  this  case  aftbrds  an  argument  equally  strong 
for  the  very  contrary  position.  It  is  a  good  remark  of  Le 
Clerc  on  this  portion  of  sacred  history,  that  it  is  introduced 
in  order  to  show,  that  although  human  victims  were  not 
offered  to  God  by  his  true  worshippers,  yet  this  did  not  arise 
from  any  unwillingness  on  their  part  to  sacrifice  the  best  and 
dearest. 

Another  reason  for  the  transaction  under  review  may  be 
found  in  the  very  language  which  introduces  it:  "God  did 
try  Abraham."  It  was  intended  as  a  test  of  his  faith  ;  not,  of 
course,  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  Omniscient,  nor  altogether 
to  strengthen  and  increase  the  patriarch's  habit  of  virtue  ;  but 
also  to  aflibrd  an  example  and  a  lesson  of  instruction  to  all 
succeeding  ages.  See  *  Rom.  xv.  4.  Hengstenberg  (ubi 
sup.  II.  p.  139.)  supposes,  that  the  command  in  the  second 
verse  was  not  intended  to  be  understood  literally  ;  that  a 
37 


290  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  ni, 

spiritual  offering  of  Isaac  is  all  that  was  required  ;  that  the 
trial  lay  in  the  ambiguity  of  the  language  employed  ;  and 
that  Abraham  misapprehended  (p.  146,)  the  meaning  !  But 
this  view  of  the  subject  is  evidently  unfounded.  The  words 
of  the  command  are  too  plain  to  allow  of  misconstruction :  and 
had  they  admitted  the  figurative  meaning  which  he  ascribes 
to  them,  the  parent's  heart  would  doubtless  have  prompted 
such  an  exposition.  A  spiiftual  offering  of  Isaac  could 
be  nothing  more  than  an  entire  dedication  of  him  to  God's 
service,  which  the  character  of  the  father  shows  had  al- 
ready been  done.  The  objection  of  this  learned  writer,  that 
God,  who  can  neither  lie  nor  repent,  could  not  afterwards 
have  recalled  his  order,  is  hardly  worthy  of  notice,  as  the 
Scripture  furnishes  us  with  so  many  instances  of  divine 
directions  being  modified  by  varying  circumstances.  His 
other  objection  is,  that  what  the  divine  law  declared  to  be 
impious,  God  cannot  have  commanded  even  in  the  way  of 
a  trial.  But,  surely,  the  divine  law^giver  may  counteract  his 
own  law  in  a  case  not  necessarily  involving  moral  evil,  and 
he  who  has  a  right  to  the  lives  of  all  may  require  any  one 
to  be  taken,  in  whatever  manner  and  by  whomsoever  he 
pleases.  The  conduct  of  God  toward  Abraham  is  in  some 
respects  similar  to  that  of  our  Lord  toward  the  Canaanitess 
related  in  Mark  vii.  27  ss.  la  neither  case  is  it  right  to 
judge  of  the  divine  motive,  without  being  governed  by  a 
view  of  the  divine  conduct  in  the  whole  transaction.  The 
countermanding  of  the  order  in  the  twelfth  verse,  is  neces- 
sarily to  be  considered,  in  forming  a  just  conception  of  the 
motive  by  which  it  was  originally  prompted. 

If  it  be  correct  to  regard  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  pre- 
figured by  the  intended  offering  of  Isaac,  another  reason  will 
be  afforded  for  this  remarkable  transaction.  It  must  be 
granted,  that  no  positive  declaration  to  this  effect  is  made  in 
Scripture.     The   language  of  our  Lord  in  John  viii.  56, 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  IL]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  291 

"  your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day,  and  he  saw 
it  and  was  glad,"  may  indeed  have  been  intended  to  bear 
upon  this  fact  in  the  patriarch's  hfe,  as  well  as  others  which 
the  brevity  of  his  history  has  passed  over  without  notice ; 
but  it  is  too  indeterminate  to  justify  a  positive  conclusion. 
And  the  only  other  passage  which  can  be  supposed  to  sus- 
tain such  a  typical  relation,  Heb.  xi.  19,  is  susceptible  of  a 
very  clear  and  intelligible  exposition,  independently  of  any 
such  connexion.  The  sacred  writer  may  intend  to  say,  that, 
speaking  figuratively  (;v  *a^a/3oX;o)  Abraham  had  originally 
received  his  son  from  the  dead,  referring  to  the  circumstan- 
ces of  his  birth.  Compare  Rom.  iv.  19,  and  Heb.  xi.  12.  Or, 
as  appears  to  me  more  probabfe,  he  may  allude  to  the  situa- 
tion in  which  Isaac  was  placed  on  the  occasion  under  re- 
view, when  he  was  »in  imminent  danger  of  destruction,  and 
rescued,  as  one  may  say,  from  the  very  jaws  of  death.  But, 
although  there  is  no  direct  proof  afforded  by  any  specific 
declaration  of  Scripture,  from  which  it  may  be  concluded 
that  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  was  typical  of  that  of  Christ;  yet 
the  contrary  is  not  hastily  to  be  inferred.  May  there  not  be 
a  typical  relationship  which  is  not  explicitly  asserted  1  May 
it  not  be  left  to  the  pious,  candid,  and  intelligent  believer,  to 
ascertain  in  some  cases  such  relationship  by  a  comparison 
of  circumstances,  and  by  the  analogy  of  Scripture  ?  Allow- 
ing, as  such  an  one  must,  the  typical  character  of  those  per- 
sons and  facts  which  the  New  Testament  so  exhibits  by 
unequivocal  declaration,  are  we  consequently  to  deny  that 
such  a  character  can  possibly  be  maintained  of  any  others  ? 
No  doubt  a  multitude  of  well-meaning  writers  have  run  to 
unwarranted  extremes  on  this  subject,  finding  typical  asso- 
ciations in  minute  and  must  fanciful  resemblances,  where 
nothing  of  the  sort  was  intended.*     But  it  is  an  axiom  which 

*  I  might  illustrate  this  remark,  by  referring  the  reader  to  the  .so- 
called  epistle  of  Barnabas,  among  works  of  antiquity,  and  among 


292  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vii. 

no  well  balanced  mind  rejects,  that  the  abuse  of  a  principle 
does  not  take  away  its  legitimate  use.  So  extraordinary  a 
fact  as  that  before  us  would  be  a  fit  symbol  of  that  most  ex- 
traordinary of  all  facts,  "  the  ofiering  of  the  body  of  Jesus 
Christ  once  for  all."  Several  similar  circumstances  might 
be  mentioned  respecting  each,  constituting  an  analogy,  cer- 
tainly not  less  striking  than  that  pointed  out  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  between  several  particulars  of  the  Mosaic 
service  and  those  facts  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  which 
we  are  there  taught  to  regard  as  correspondent. 

(98.)  Machpelah  seems  to  have  been  the  name  of  the 
place,  (v.  9,  17,)  derived  perhaps  from  the  circumstance  of 
its  containing  a  double  cave  :  SlDS^/?  from  533  to  double. — 
It  is  remarked  by  Le  Clerc,  that  the  length  of  the  sentence 
in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  verses,  and  the  particu- 
larity with  which  the  land  is  designated,  agree  well  with  the 
supposition,  that  it  is  a  part  of  the  legal  document  which 
secured  the  purchase. 

I  cannot  acquiesce  in  the  remarks  made  from  a  writer  in 
the  Pictorial  Bible  by  Professor  Bush,  in  his  account  of  the 
transaction  of  Abraham  and  the  Hittite  chief  "  This 
Ephron  is  the  first  of  that  nation  who  comes  under  our  no- 
tice ;  and  his  tone  and  manner  on  this  occasion  do  no  great 
credit  to  his  tribe.  We  are  not  surprised  that  Ephrons 
respectful  and  seemingly  liberal  conduct  has  been  beheld 
favorably  in  Europe,  for  only  one  who  has  been  in  the  east 
can  properly  appreciate  the  rich  orientalism  it  exhibits." 

modern  compositions,  to  Busman's  Solomon's  Temple  Spiritualized,  or 
to  McEaven  on  the  Types.  But  to  show  that  even  a  learned  and  able 
.divine  may  be  led  away  into  wild  extravagances  on  this  jioint,  I  pre- 
fer directing  his  attention  to  Vitri.nga's  remarks  on  the  typical  charac- 
ter of  Joseph  and  Samson,  in  his  Observaliones  Sacra;,  Lib.  VI.  cap. 
xxi.  xxii. 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  II.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  293 

The  affair  is  then  represented  as  an  ostentatious  and  hypo- 
critical ofler  of  Ephron,  arising  out  of  his  wish  "to  lay  so 
great  a  person  as  Abraham  under  obligation,"  wilh  the  view 
of  "obtaining  a  present  of  much  more  than  equal  value  in 
return."  But  the  patriarch  "  understands  these  matters,  and 
is  not  disposed  to  receive  such  obligation."  The  depth  of 
his  grief  on  occasion  of  the  death  of  his  long-beloved  Sarah, 
does  not  prevent  his  conducting  himself,  in  making  arrange- 
ments for  her  suitable  interment,  with  a  shrewd  and  wary 
foresight  respecting  his  pecuniary  interests.  In  plain  words, 
the  Hittite  was  a  cunning  and  unfeeling  sharper,  and  Abra- 
ham too  knowing  a  dealer  to  be  deceived  by  him  !  It  is 
hard,  to  make  any  selfish  pretence  of  generosity  which  may 
characterize  some  modern  Persians,  and  the  cautious  circum- 
spection of  an  experienced  traveller,  always  apprehensive  of 
being  overreached,  the  rule  whereby  to  judge  a  very  an- 
cient Canaanitish  tribe,  and  a  generous,  open-hearted  prince 
like  Abraham. 

(99.)  It  appears  from  the  fiftieth  verse,  that  Laban,  Re- 
becca's brother,  acts  conjointly  wilh  her  father  in  relation  to 
the  proposed  marriage.  This  accords  with  the  influence 
which  brothers  exercised  in  disposing  of  sisters,  and  is  illus- 
trated by  the  case  of  Dinah  in  chap,  xxxiv.  11  ss.  See  also 
Judges  xxi.  22. — The  phrase  "  bad  or  good,"  in  the  latter 
clause  of  the  same  verse,  is  equivalent  to  the  Hebraism 
"  from  good  to  bad"  in  xxxi.  24,  29  ;  and  the  meaning  is, 
'  we  have  nothing  to  say  on  this  subject,  it  is  evidently  the 
working  of  Providence.' 

(100.)  It  would  seem,  that  the  constitution  of  Abraham 
must  have  been  greatly  strengthened,  if  not  i-enovated.  since 
the  time  immediately  preceding  the  last  promise  of  Isaac's 
birth.     This  supposition  appears  necessary,  in  order  to  re- 


294  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  vii. 

concile  the  fact  of  his  having  so  many  children  by  Keturah, 
with  the  texts  referred  to  in  the  latter  part  of  note  (58,)  above. 
That  he  did  not  marry  her  until  alter  Sarah's  death,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  arrangement  of  the  narrative  and  the  whole 
series  of  the  history.  Mr,  Bush,  in  his  note  on  xxv.  1,  fol- 
lows some  of  the  older  commentators  in  supposing  Keturah  to 
have  been  Abraham's  concubine  during  the  life-time  of  Sarah. 
But  the  arguments  alleged  in  favor  of  this  opinion  do  not  ap- 
pear to  be  of  much  weight.  If,  on  the  supposition  of  her 
having  been  a  second  wife,  there  is  any  difficulty  in  her  being 
called  a  concubine  in  Chronicles,  there  is,  on  the  other  hand, 
a  difficulty  in  her  being  called  liis  wife  in  Genesis,  on  the 
supposition  of  her  having  been  merely  a  concubine.  "  The 
silence  of  Moses  about  her  pedigree"  certainly  proves  noth- 
ing. It  was  his  great  design  to  show  the  accomplishment 
of  the  promise  through  Isaac ;  and,  therefore,  the  mother  of 
any  other  of  Abraham's  children  must  be  comparatively  a 
very  insignificant  personage  in  his  estimation.  The  "  im- 
probability that  Abraham  would  make  an  alliance  with  any 
family  of  the  Canaanites,  and  that  any  princess  of  Canaan 
would  accept  of  him,  in  his  old  age,  when  the  whole  inheri- 
tance was  to  go  to  Sarah's  son,"  no  more  supports  the 
opinion  "that  Keturah  was  a  concubine,"  than  a  wife  "taken 
from  among  the  servants  of  his  family."  The  author  asks  : 
"  was  the  interval  sufficient,  between  Sarah's  death  and 
Abraham's,  for  six  sons  to  "be  born  to  him  of  one  woman, 
and  grow  up  to  manhood,  when  manhood  hardly  took 
place  before  the  age  of  thirty  at  soonest  ?"  Without  stop- 
pino'  to  inquire  whether  an  age  of  thirty  years  was  necessary 
to  the  attainment  of  manhood  at  that  period,  it  is  sufficient 
to  reply,  that  a  comparison  of  xvii.  17,  xxiii.  1,  and  xxv.  7, 
shows  that  Abraham  outlived  Sarah  thirty-eight  years,  a 
space  of  time  quite  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  demand.  The 
other  objection  drawn  from  his  advanced  age  and  corporeal 


T*. 


CHAP.  XI.  27— XXV.  ]1.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  295 

debility,  shortly  before  the  time  of  Isaac's  birth,  is  answered 
by  allowing  that  there  was  '•  a  continuance  of  his  physical 
vigor,"  in  consequence  of  a  miraculous  restoration  of  it. 

The  last  objection  just  noted  would  oblige  the  Professor 
to  allow  the  birth  of  these  six  sons  to  have  taken  place  be- 
fore that  of  Isaac.  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  narra- 
tive, which  always  represents  Abraham  as  childless  until  the 
birth  of  Ishmael,  who  is  afterwards  uniformly  mentioned  as 
his  only  son  until  Isaac  is  born.  See  xv.  2,  xvii.  18 — 21, 
25,  26. 

(101.)  Keturah  was  Abraham's  wife  in  the  proper  sense 
of  the  term  ;  yet  she  is  regarded  as  inferior  to  Sarah,  whom 
the  patriarch  first  married,  and  with  whom  he  lived  so  long, 
and  in  1  Chron.  i.  32,  she  is  consequently  called  his  concu- 
bine. Her  children,  therefore,  and  the  son  of  Hagar,  are 
probably  the  persons  intended  in  the  sixth  verse. 

.  Part  VIII.     Chap.  xxv.  12—18. 
(102.)  See  note  (74.) 

Part  IX.     Chap.  xxv.  19— xxxv.  29. 

(103.)  The  name  Esau,  Itp!^  is  derived  by  many  com- 
mentators, both  Jewish  and  Christian,  from  !Tffi5'  to  makcy 
to  form,  and  is  thought  to  express  the  child's  comparatively 
complete  formation  at  the  time  of  his  birth,  when  he  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  at  least  as  hairy  as  a  grown  man.  But 
this  seems  very  strained.     It  is  better  to  derive  the  word 

from  the  Arabic,  Jc^  to  be  hairy.  Esau's  other  name 
Edom,  meaning  red,  is  that  by  which  his  posterity  are  gene- 
rally distinguished.     Its  origin  is  stated  in  v.  30. — Jacob, 


296  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  IX. 

'2p^_'^_  is  from   '2'p,'^  to  hold  the  heel,  (compare  Hos.  xii.  4 :) 
hence,  to  supplant,  (Gen.  xxvii.  30.) 

(104.)  Tiie  Hebrew  is  t3v1  tS^iiJ.  Our  English  transla- 
tion, following  jirobably  the  Septuagint  u.-TtAas-og,  and  the  A^ul- 
gate  simplex,  renders  it  "  a  plain  man."  So  also  the  Geneva 
version,  with  the  marginal  note,  "  simple  and  innocent." 
Lyra  has  "  simplex"  with  the  note,  "  sine  plica  dolositatis  !"* 
Cranmcr's  Bible,  more  correctly,  because  exactly  accord- 
ing to  the  original,  translates  it  "  a  perfect  man,"  as  the 
same  word,  when  used  of  individuals,  is  often  rendered  in 
the  ordinary  version.  No  doubt  the  author  intends  to 
describe  Jacob  as  a  religious  man.  And,  in  all  probability, 
this  character  of  the  patriarch  is  intimated  also  by  the  next 
Words,  "  dwelling  in  tents."  This  lano-uafre  is  sometimes 
used  in  contradistinction  to  settlement  in  a  permanent  or 
well-fortified  residence.  Thus  in  Num.  xiii.  11),  "  whether 
they  dwell  in  tents  or  strong  holds  ;"  also  in  Jer.  xxxv.  7, 
"neither  shall  ye  build  house,  &c.,  but  all  your  days  ye  shall 
dwell  in  tents  ;"  and  again  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  verses. 
And  the  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  speaks  of 
Abraham  as  "  a  sojourner  in  the  land  of  promise,  dwelling 
in  tents  as  well  as"  Isaac  and  Jacob,"  and  contrasts  their 
unsettled  habitation  with  the  "  city  that  hath  foundations, 
whose  builder  and  maker  is  God."  xi.  9,  10.  Here  it  may 
be  weir  to  trace  some  of  the  prominent  features  which 
characterize  the  two  brothers,  Jacob  and  Esau.  In  doing 
this,  I  shall  be  guided  considerably  by  the  remarks  of 
Drechsler  in  the  work  already  referred  to. 

Esau,   it  would  seem,  belonged  to  the  class  of  rough, 

*  Such  translations  naturally  suggest  the  inquir\%  whether  the  au- 
thors did  not  thereby  intend  to  shield  Jacob  against  the  charge  of  cun- 
ning, which  might  seem  to  be  founded  on  some  parts  of  his  history. 


CHAP.  XXV.  19— XXXV.  29.]       NOTES    TO    GENESIS. 


297 


sensual  natures,  men,  who,  acting  under  the  influence  of 
present  impulse,  have  no  steadiness  of  character.  They  are 
distinguished  by  an  imposing  directness  of  conduct,  the  very 
opposite  to  any  thing  deceitful  or  cunning.  They  have 
feeling  and  kindness ;  they  readily  forget  an  injury,  and 
cherish  no  malice.  These  amiable  qualities  are  associated, 
however,  with  levity,  sensuality,  and  passion,  leading  to  acts 
of  violence,  as  circumstances  may  prompt.  That  Esau's 
character  was  of  this-  nature  is  evident,  as  well  from  the 
advantageous  points  which  his  history  discloses,  as  from  the 
contrary.  Were  we  to  form  an  opinion  of  the  two  brothers 
from  one  or  two  insulated  facts,  we  should  probably  decide 
in  favor  of  the  elder.  The  narrative  in  chap,  xxxiii.  3,  4, 
for  instance,  considered  by  itself,  is  unquestionably  much  in 
favor  of  Esau.  The  one  bows  himself  seven  times  to  the 
ground  in  the  presence  of  his  elder  brother;  the  other,  yield- 
ing to  the  heart's  impulse,  rushes  forward  with  the  fraternal 
embrace.  The  whole  interview  shows  Esau  to  have  been 
a  man  of  heart  and  feeling,  kindly  disposed,  glad  to  do  a 
favor,  and  uninfluenced  by  any  selfish  considerations.  See 
particularly  xxxiii.  9. 

Favorable  also  to  the  character  of  Esau  is  the  statement, 
that  when  he  observed  that  the  choice  of  his  Hittite  wives 
was  disagreeable  to  his  parents,  he  endeavored  to  make  a 
more  acceptable  selection.  See  xxviii.  9.  Hereby,  how- 
ever, nothing  more  is  proved  than  this,  that  he  would  not 
openly  and  boldly  oppose  his  parents.  That  he  consulted 
their  wishes  does  not  appear  from  the  narrative,  neither  is  it  in 
itself  probable,  as  they  would  most  likely  have  suggested  a 
different  choice.  And  his  former  union  with  the  Canaani- 
tish  women  shows,  that  he  hghtly  appreciated  those  divine 
directions,  by  which  his  father  and  brother  were  governed 
in  the  choice  of  companions  for  life. 

If  it  be  asked,  what  it  is  that  makes  Jacob's  character  so 
38 


298  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  IX. 

particularly  deserving  of  estimation,  the  answer  is  this  :  'his 
whole  life  was  spent  in  the  faith  of  the  God  of  his  fathers.' 
It  was  this  divine  principle  which  governed  him  from  his 
earliest  years.  Even  in  the  purchase  of  his  birthright,  un- 
kind and  ungenerous  as  was  the  act  under  existing  circum- 
stances, it  was  not  without  an  influence.  It  was  not  his  own 
personal  worldly  advantage  which  he  had  in  view,  but 
rather  the  future  prosperity,  temporal,  spiritual,  and  eternal, 
of  his  progeny.  Esau,  who  "  despised  his  birthright,"  re- 
ceived his  possessions  earlier  than  Jacob.  He  founded  a 
nation  without  subjecting  his  progeny  to  any  disgrace  like 
that  which  the  descendants  of  Jacob  experienced  in  Egypt. 
But,  to  be  the  heir  of  the  promise,  to  acquire  possession  of 
Canaan,  to  be  associated  with  God  in  Abraham's  covenant, — 
this  elevated  calling  was  supposed  to  be  connected  with  the 
rights  of  the  first-born.  See  xv.  13 — 16.  The  sensual 
Esau  esteemed  all  this  at  a  very  low  rate.  With  him  the 
passion  of  the  present  moment  predominated.  Jacob,  on 
the  other  hand,  had  his  thoughts  fixed  on  the  divine 
promises,  and  therefore  he  obtained  the  blessing  of  Abra- 
ham, (xxvii.  28,  29,  xxviii.  3,  4,  13,  14,)  which,  indeed,  had 
been  secured  to  him  by  divine  right  before  his  birth,  (xxv. 
23  ss.,)  and  to  which  he  had  acquired  a  human  claim  by 
purchase,  (xxv.  29  ss.,)  although  in  a  manner  much  to  be 
censured. 

In  order  to  prepare  himself  for  the  accomplishment  of 
the  divine  purpose,  he  is  obliged,  partly  by  adverse  cir- 
cumstances, and  partly  in  order  to  form  a  matrimonial  con- 
nexion with  his  father's  family,  to  go  to  Mesopotamia.  The 
latter  cause  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  incidental  and  of  little 
weight,  for  all  such  connexion  with  the  nations  of  Canaan 
was  strictly  prohibited  and  carefully  guarded  against,  both 
by  Abraham  and  Isaac.  See  xxiv.  2 — 9,  and  xxviii.  1,  2,  6  ; 
and  compare  xxvii.  40,  and  xxvi.  25. 


CHAP.  XXV.  19— XXXV.  29.]       NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  299 

On  his  journey  to  Mesopotamia,  Jacob  shows  his  religious 
character,  in  devoting  himself  and  a  reasonable  proportion 
of  his  property  to  the  service  of  God.  See  xxviii.  20 — 22. 
While  residing  with  his  uncle  Laban,  who  attempted  to 
abuse  in  his  person  the  rights  of  hospitality  and  the  claims 
of  relationship,  he  commits  the  prosperity  of  his  enterprises 
to  God.  XXX.  32,  33,  xxxi.  7,  9—13,  42.  On  his  return,  in 
the  apprehension  of  danger,  he  trusts  to  the  same  almighty 
defence,  exercising  a  religious  faith  with  suitable  humil- 
ity, xxxii.  9 — 12.  Doubtless  he  might  have  settled  himself 
advantageously  in  Mesopotamia,  but  duty  required  his  return 
to  Canaan,  and  he  religiously  obeyed  the  call.  xxxi.  3,  13. 
The  same  character  displays  itself  in  the  remainder  of  his 
life.  In  his  old  age  he  undertakes  a  journey  to  Egypt,  to 
meet  his  much-loved  and  long-lost  son  ;  but  not  untd  his 
devotions  had  been  favored  with  the  divine  answer,  and  a 
direction  to  settle  there  for  a  season,  with  the  promise  that 
his  posterity,  having  there  become  a  great  nation,  should,  by 
the  good  providence  of  God,  return  to  Canaan,  xlvi.  1 — 4. 
The  same  religious  faith  leads  him  to  require  from  Joseph 
in  particular,  and  again  from  his  sons  in  general,  a  solemn 
assurance  that  his  body  should  be  interred  in  the  promised 
land,  where  his  fathers  lay,  (xlvii.  29 — 31,  xlix.  29 — 32,)  and 
which  he  doubted  not  his  descendants  would  occupy.  All  this 
is  in  unison  with  that  religious  ardor  which  prompted  the 
language,  "  I  will  not  let  thee  go,  unless  -  thou  bless  me." 
xxxii.  26. 

In  giving  this  view  of  Jacob's  religious  character,  I  have 
no  intention  of  vindicating  all  his  conduct.  His  constitu- 
tional prudence  sometimes  degenerated  into  coldness,  and 
led  him  to  take  advantage  of  the  warmer  feelings  of  his  less 
considerate  brother.  His  characteristic  shrewdness  occa- 
sionally displayed  itself  in  artifice  and  perhaps  deceit.  And 
it  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  the  narrative  which  describes  the 


300  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part   TX. 

meeting  of  the  brothers,  (xxxiii.)  represents  the  younger  in 
a  ]ess  favorable  hght  than  the  elder.  He  is  reserved  and 
distant ;  his  manner  of  approaching  his  brother  is  marked 
by  that  obsequiousness  which  characterizes  the  eastern  de- 
pendent. Still,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  Jacob's  situation, 
in  order  to  form  a  correct  opinion  of  his  behaviour.  He  had 
good  reason  to  dread  a  meeting  which  might  expose  him  to 
his  brother's  resentment,  which  he  could  not  be  unconscious 
was  in  some  measure  deserved.  He  knew  that  before  his 
flight  to  Mesopotamia,  Esau  had  resolved  on  bloody  ven- 
geance, xxvii.  41,  42.  He  knew  the  rough,  passionate  na- 
ture of  his  brother,  and  feared  some  hasty  ebullition  of  un- 
guarded temper.  Himself  less  governed  by  feeling,  less 
prompt  to  hasty  action,  the  peaceable  shepherd,  many  of 
whose  years  had  been  spent  in  the  humble  situation  of  a 
servant,  conducting  a  multitude  of  dependents,  children, 
feeble  women  and  unprotected  flocks,  he  could  not  but  trem- 
ble at  the  approach  of  an  injured  brother,  who  made  his 
appearance  with  an  armed  force  as  the  independent  lord  of 
Seir,  to  trample  down,  as  he  might  reasonably  suppose,  the 
servile  supplanter,  and  to  crush  and  scatter  his  weak  and 
defenceless  company.  Prudence  also  dictated  to  Jacob  the 
propriety  of  satisfying  his  brother  that  he  was  in  no  condi- 
tion to  claim  rights  of  primogeniture,  and  that  in  him  no 
competitor  could  be  expected.  He  assumes,  therefore, 
without  hesitation,  the  deportment  of  a  submissive  inferior, 
and  acknowledges  the  elder  brother  as  his  "lord  Esau." 
The  latter,  melted  into  kindness,  urges  Jacob  to  continue  in 
his  company.  Well  acquainted  with  Esau's  mutability  of 
character,  knowing  that,  under  different  circumstances,  his 
good  nature  and  generosity  of  feeling  might  turn  to  over- 
heated passion,  and  that,  forgetful  of  the  past,  he  might  be 
hurried  into  some  hasty  and  extravagant  act,  Jacob  cau- 
tiously and  very  prudently  declines.     He  is  well  aware  that 


CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  30 J 

the  brotherly  feeUng  of  the  mighty  chieftain  of  Edom  might 
rapidly  pass  away,  "  like  the  morning  cloud,  or  the  early 
dew." 

The  conduct  of  Jacob,  as  related  in  xxx.  25 — 43,  has  been 
the  occasion  of  no  little  animadversion.  He  has  been  ac- 
cused of  overreaching  his  mother's  brother  by  deceit  and 
artifice.  If  the  contents  of  this  portion  of  the  chapter 
could  be  viewed  in  no  other  light  than  this,  then,  indeed,  there 
would  be  a  great  difficulty  to  resolve,  namely,  to  account 
for  such  a  procedure  being  related  in  the  Bible.  Certainly 
it  does  not  comport  with  the  object  of  this  sacred  book,  to 
relate  instances  of  cunning  merely  for  the  purpose  of  amuse- 
ment. It  does,  indeed,  mention  the  frailties  and  sins  of  holy 
men,  but  always  with  some  definite  object  in  view.  The 
falsehood  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  in  denying  their  wives,  the 
imposition  which  Jacob  was  induced  to  practise  on  his  bhnd 
and  aged  father,  David's  infamous  conduct  in  the  aflfair  of 
Bathsheba,  have  all  a  historical  and  moral  and  religious 
bearing.  But  what  could  lead  to  the  introduction  of  an 
account  of  such  a  crafty  device  as  this  is  asserted  to  have 
been  1  In  order  rightly  to  understand  such  a  portion  of  the 
Bible  as  that  under  consideration,  it  is  necessary  to  have 
right  views  of  the  character  of  the  Bible.  That  exposition 
must  necessarily  rest  on  an  erroneous  basis,  which  assumes 
that  the  sacred  writer  could  have  in  view  any  other  than  a 
sacred  purpose  ;  that  he  could,  by  any  possibility,  have  in- 
tended to  exhibit  a  well  planned  and  successful  piece  of 
cunning,  or  some  remarkable  lusus  naturae,  brought  forward 
on  account  of  its  extreme  rarity.  Such  views  are  abhorrent 
to  every  well-ordered  and  serious  mind. 

Jacob  is  treated  most  unrighteously  by  the  selfish  Laban, 
and  reduced  to  extremity.  The  narrative  relates  the  par- 
ticulars. His  own  conduct  had  been  in  all  respects  unex- 
ceptionable and  honorable,  and  divine  Providence  had  blessed 


302  NOTES    TO    GENESra.  [part  IX. 

his  hard  labors,  increased  his  gains,  and  thus  inflicted  merited 
punishment  on  the  churlish  Laban.  In  the  arrangement 
which  constitutes  the  ground  of  objection,  Jacob  proposes 
that  the  only  wages  to  be  received  by  him  shall  be  the  re- 
suit  of  circumstances,  which  were  altogether  beyond  the 
reach  of  human  reasoning  and  calculation,  much  more  of 
human  action.  Whatever  light  modern  inquiries  in  physi- 
ology may  throw  on  the  phenomena  in  contemplation,  by 
alleging  instances  of  the  wonderful  power  of  imagination  on 
the  female  when  in  the  circumstances  suggested  in  the  text, 
it  is  hardly  to  be  supposed,  that  Jacob's  knowledge  of  the 
mysteries  of  nature  could  have  been  so  profound  as  to  lead 
him,  of  his  own  accord,  to  adopt  the  course  related,  particu- 
larly as  he  risked  his  very  subsistence  on  a  result,  which, 
considered  as  a  natural  effect  merely,  he  could  not  but  have 
known  to  be  extremely  problematical.  Surely,  it  was  the  pat- 
riarch's childlike,  implicit  faith  in  the  divine  direction,  com- 
municated to  him  in  the  ordinary  manner,  which  impelled 
his  conduct.  Compare  xxxi.  9 — 12.  See  farther  on  this 
subject  in  note  (118.) 

(105.)  The  privileges  of  the  birthright  consisted  in  pre- 
cedence over  the  other  brothers,  and  a  double  patrimony. 
See  Gen.  xlix.  3,  4,  Deut.  xxi.  17,  1  Chron.  v.  1,  2.  To  this 
some  add  the  right  of  the  priesthood.  The  opinion  is  cer- 
tainly of  very  high  antiquity,  as  it  is  expressly  stated  in  the 
Chaldee  Targum  on  Gen.  xlix.  3,  where  the  priestly  authority 
is  mentioned  as  that  part  of  Reuben's  rights  of  primogeniture 
which  fell  to  the  tribe  of  Levi.  See  the  Note  on  that  text. 
It  is  supposed  also  by  most  Jewish  and  Christian  commen- 
tators, that  "  the  priests"  mentioned  in  Exod.  xix.  22,  and  the 
"  young  men"  in  xxiv.  5,  are  the  first-born,  who  being  con- 
secrated to  God,  (see  xiii.  2,)  became  priests,  in  place  of 
whom  the  Levites  were  afterwards  substituted.     Num.  iii. 


CHi.P.ixv.19— IXXT.29.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  303 

45.     But  the  argument  assumes  the  very  points  in  dispute, 
namely,  that  the  consecration  of  the  first-born   was  an  in- 
vesting of  them   with  the   priesthood,  and  that   the   priests 
and  young  men  referred  to  were  identical  with  the  first- 
born, neither  of  which  can  be  proved.     Besides,  the   Le- 
vites    who    took    the    place    of   the    first-born,    were    not 
priests,  but  only  attendants  or  servants  of  the  sanctuary ; 
and   "  the  priesthood*'   which   they  are   said   "  to  receive," 
in  Heb.  vii.  5,  (if,  indeed,  the  whole  body  of  Levites  are 
there  intended,  which  it  is  impossible  to  prove,)  must  be 
understood  in   a  limited    sense.     That    Esau  is   called  "  a 
profane  person,"   (Heb.  xii.  IG.)    for  thus  parting   with  his 
birthright,  would  indeed  be  clearly  explicable  on  the  ground 
that  the  priestly  office  made  a  part  of  it.     But  it  is  equally 
so,  if  the  rights  of  primogeniture  were  regarded  in  the  pat- 
riarchal age  as  comprehending  any  spiritual  blessings ;  which 
it  would  be   unreasonable,  and  in   opposition  to  the  general 
representations  of  Scripture,  to  deny.     If  the  expected  de- 
liverer were  supposed  to  be   a  descendant  from  the   eldest 
son,  Esau's  profanity  in  despising  the  honor  of  being  ances- 
tor of  such  an  offspring,  requires  no  illustration.     It  is  little 
less  than  despising  the   benefits   which  were    expected   to 
flow  from  this  personage.     His  readiness  in  yielding  to  his 
brother's  proposition,  and  the  sentiment  along  with  which 
he  expresses  his  determination,  shows  clearly  enough  that 
his  views  were  limited  to  personal  gratification.     "  I  am  at 
the  point  to  die,  and  what  profit  shall  this  birthright  do  to 
me  ?"     It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  Esau  was  in  danger  of 
immediate  death  for  want  of  food  in  his  fathers  house  :  his 
language   is    of   that   extravagant    hyperbolical    character, 
which  could  be  occasioned  by  nothing  less  than  a  vehement 
desire  for  the  food  before   him,  and   a  very  low  estimate  of 
the  value  of  the  price  demanded  for  it.     The  subject  of  the 
priesthood,  considered  as  one  of  the  rights  of  primogeniture. 


304  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  ix. 

is  ably  discussed  by  Vitringa,  and  settled  in  the  negative,  in 
his  Observation's  Sacrro,  Lib.  II.  cap.  ii.  iii.  p.  271 — 300. 
Buddffius,  ubi  sup.  Per.  I.  sect.  iii.  p.  389  ss.,  has  taken 
some  notice  of  his  Dissertation,  without  succeeding,  however, 
in  refuting  his  arguments. 

(106.)  Beer,  IJS;!!,  means  a  well,  and  ^'2^,  to  swear, 
whence  n^^^^tl)  an  oath:  ^'^tp  is  the  word  for  seven.  The 
oath  is  no  doubt  the  principal  circumstance  giving  rise  to 
the  name.  This  is  plain  from  the  language  in  xxi.  31 ; 
"  therefore  he  called  the  name  of  that  place.  Beer  Sheba, 
^^IniD  "^i^!!!*  (without  the  athnach  ^"2X5 ;)  because  there  they 
sware,  ^y'3.W'2,  both  of  them.  "  Still,  as  Hengstenberg  re- 
marks, neither  ^21^  nor  Jl^^ntp  ever  means  oath.  He  con- 
siders the  bringing  of  seven  sheep  as  the  usual  symbol,  by 
means  of  which  the  compact  and  oath  were  ratified ;  so  that 
both  phrases  are  equivalent.  See  his  Authentic  des  Penta- 
teuches,  I.  p.  277. 

(107.)  The  ardent  attachment  of  Isaac  to  his  elder  son 
doubtless  strengthened  his  natural  desire,  that  the  divine 
blessing  should  flow  to  posterity  thorough  him.  The  same 
preference  of  the  elder  son  appears  in  the  case  of  Joseph. 
See  Gen.  xlviii.  17,  18.  It  is  reasonable  to  think,  that  Re- 
becca's particular  affection  for  Jacob  confirmed  her  in  the 
impression,  that  he  was  destined  to  become  the  more  distin- 
guished of  her  two  children.  Indeed,  the  prediction  made 
to  her  before  they  were  born,  no  doubt  gave  her  mind  a 
bias  especially  favorable  to  Jacob,  which  would  naturally 
be  increased  by  his  domestic  habits.  Perhaps  she  saw  in 
her  husband  an  undue  partiality  for  the  elder  brother ;  and, 
apprehensive  of  its  consequences  in  diverting  the  blessing 
from  the  intended  channel,  may  have  supposed  herself  justi- 
fied in  resorting  to  the  crafty  expedients  which  the  narrative 


CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS. 


305 


recounts.  The  lawfulness  of  religious  frauds,  as  such  at- 
tempts to  advance  the  cause  of  God  have  by  a  strange 
misnomer  been  called,  has  been  maintained  by  some  men  of 
the  very  highest  distinction  in  the  Christian  church,  from  a 
very  early  age.  It  is  not  therefore  to  be  assumed  that  Re- 
becca had  clear  ideas  of  obligation  in  all  points,  and  conse- 
quently our  censures  of  her  conduct  ought  to  be  modified 
by  a  correct  view  of  her  religious  and  moral  knowledge. 
Certainly  the  divine  pron:iise  needed  no  deceitful  efforts, 
either  on  the  part  of  Jacob  or  his  mother,  to  verify  its  ac- 
complishment; non  tahbus  auxiliis.  Neither  human  "wrath" 
nor  human  cunning  is  necessary  to  "  work  the  righteousness 
of  God."     James  i.  20. 

It  is  much  to  be  lamented,  that  both  Jewish  and  Christian 
writers  of  authority  have  too  often  attempted  to  vindicate, 
or  at  least  greatly  to  excuse,  certain  conduct  of  the  patri- 
archs and  other  personages  of  Scripture,  as  if  their  gene- 
ral faith  and  piety  stamped  correctness  on  every  action  of 
their  lives.  Miserable  are  the  subterfuges  by  which  it  has 
been  attempted  to  elicit  morality  and  truth,  from  cunning 
hypocrisy  and  falsehood.  Thus,  for  example,  Aben  Ezra,  in 
commenting  on  this  portion  of  Genesis,  attempts  to  vindi- 
cate falsehood  on  occasion  of  necessity,  [Tiyi^  T'mliSb,)  by 
appealing  to  David's  declaration  to  Abimelech,  "  the  vessels 
of  the  young  men  are  holy,"  (1  Sam.  xxi.  5  ;)  to  Elisha's 
message  to  the  king  of  Syria,  "  go,  say  unto  him,  thou  wilt 
certainly  recover,"  (2  Kings  viii.  10,)  although  his  meaning 
is,  as  is  afterwards  expressed,  "  the  Lord  hath  showed  me 
that  he  shall  surely  die  ;"  to  Micaiah's  language  to  Ahab, 
"go  and  prosper,"  (1  Kings  xxii.  15  ;)  to  Daniel's  address  to 
Nebuchadnezzar,  "  my  lord,  the  dream  be  to  them  that  hate 
thee,"  (Dan.  iv.  19.)  And  Rashi's  comment,  though  brief, 
according  to  his  manner,  very  evidently  makes  the  language 

of  Jacob   an   equivocation:  "  1t2J5>1  ^D  i^^n^^H  'iW  '^DiSfl 
3P 


306  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  IX- 

"TllSi  JS^in,  I  Esau  :*  who  bring  to  thee,  and  Esan,  he  is 
thy  first-born  ;"  that  is,  '  I  am  bringing  thee  the  food,  and 
Esau  is  thy  eldest  son.'f  And  not  only  do  Jews  of  the 
middle  ages  make  these  wretched  efforts  to  remove  their 
great  ancestor's  criminality  ;  but  a  most  distinguished  Chris- 
tian father  of  the  fourth  century  labors  with  Jesuitical  so- 
phistry to  free  him  and  his  mother  from  censure,  and  to  re- 
present their  conduct  as  worthy  of  praise.  The  golden- 
mouthed  patriarch  of  Constantinople  employs  the  force  of 
his  eloquence  to  give  weight  to  the  opinion,  which  others 
before  him  had  advanced,  that,  as  the  frauds  in  question  did 
not  proceed  ft'om  any  inclination  to  do  mischief,  but  were 
subservient  to  "the  attainment  of  the  highest  good,  the  prin- 
cipals in  conducting  them  are  rather  entitled  to  approbation 
than  obnoxious  to  censure.  Thus,  in  his  fii^y-third  Homily 
on  Genesis,  (chap,  xxvii.)  Tom.  IV.  p.  515,  of  the  Benedictine' 
edition,  he  says  :  ''O^a  |x-/]r|of  cpikocfro^yiav,  f^aXXov  Ss  6sw  otxovo/x- 

TTotv  xaro^&wS^vai  ■Trrjiwv  "  See  the  greatness  of  the  mother's 
love,  or  rather  the  dispensation  of  God.  For  he  it  was  who 
excited  her  to  (give)  the  counsel,  and  who  made  the  whole 
matter  successful."  And  afterwards  he  speaks  of  her  act- 
ing '  not  from  the  impulse  of  her  own  opinion  merely,  but 
under  a  prompting  from  above,'  avukv  and  again,  p.  516,  of 
'  her   and   Jacob    doing  what  was   proper   (or  necessary, 

*  These  two  words  are  the  text,  the  comment  follows. 

f  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  Cartwright,  after  rejecting  the  erro- 
neous gloss  of  Rashi,  and  noting  with  disapprobation  the  attempt  of 
Lyra  to  free  Jacob  from  the  charge  of  falsehood,  by  saying,  that  in  office 
and  dignity  respecting  the  right  of  primogeniture,  Jacob  was  Esan,  does 
himself  make  the  remark,  that  "  if  Jacob  had  only  said,  I  am  the  first- 
born, he  miglit  perhaps  be  excusable  :  san<?  si  tantum  dixisset,  ego  sum 
primogenitus,  excusari  forsan  potuisset;  et  cum  dixerit,  ego  sum  Esau, 
fnistra  queeritur  excusatio."  What  views  could  these  theologians  have 
had  of  the  nature  of  falsehood  ? 


CHiP.xxT.19— XXXV.29.]         NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  307 

ix^jjv)  to  be  done,  and  of  the  most  difficult  part  of  all,  the 
concealment  of  the  fraud  from  Isaac,  being  effected  by  the 
good  Lord's  co-operation.'  And  then,  as  his  hearer  might 
well  be  supposed  to  ask  whether  God  lent  his  aid  to  such  a 
falsehood,  he  kindly  cautions  him  '  not  to  be  too  inquisitive 
about  the  fact,  but  to  attend  to  the  design  in  view,  which 
was  not  the  acquisition  of  any  temporal  advantage,  but  the 
paternal  benediction  :*  iJ^rj  airXuig  s^ira^s  to  yivojxevov,  dyaojTe, 
aKka.  Tov  tfjcotfov  xaTa|xa.v5avs,  xat  tu  a. 

It  should  never  be  forgotten,  that  the  characters  who 
stand  out  in  such  bold  relief  in  the  pages  of  sacred  Scrip- 
ture, are  represented  as  men,  weak  and  sinful  like  ourselves. 
The  inspired  historian  does  not  indeed  stop,  in  his  narrative, 
to  express  any  opinion  respecting  the  moral  character  of  the 
actions  he  records  ;  but  we  are  not  on  this  account  to  sup- 
pose that  he  meant  to  justify  them,  any  more  than  we  should 
infer  from  a  similar  silence  that  the  Evangelists  did  not  con- 
demn the  act  of  crucifying  our  Lord.  It  was  not  the  writer's 
object  to  comment  on  the  character  of  the  action ;  but  ra- 
ther to  give  a  true  picture  of  human  nature,  and  to  illustrate 
the  divine  influence  in  accomplishing  God's  schemes,  not- 
withstanding the  natural  tinfitness  of  the  agency  by  means 
of  which  they  were  advanced.  And  yet  the  judgment  of 
the  author,  and  even  the  divine  judgment,  are  readily  dis- 
cernible by  the  attentive  reader  in  the  history  itself.  The 
acquiescence  of  Abraham  in  the  advice  of  Sarah,  whereby 
he  betrays  a  want  of  that  implicit  reliance  on  the  divine 
promise  by  which  he  was  generally  characterized,  is  fol- 
lowed by  consequences  which  for  a  time  were  fatal  to  his 
domestic  peace.  Jacob's  conduct  on  the  present  occasion 
meets  with  its  merited  retribution  in  the  treatment  which  he 
afterwards  receives  from  Laban ;  and  Rebecca,  in  that  long 
and  anxious  separation  from  her  favorite,  which  must  in  a 
good  degree  have  embittered  her  life.     And  to  this  it  may 


808  NOTES    TO    GENESI3.  [pAET  IX. 

be  proper  to  add,  that  if  the  sacred  writer  relates  these  oc^ 
currences  without  any  expression  of  censure,  he  sometimes 
stamps  upon  them  the  seal  of  his  reprobation,  when,  in  a 
subsequent  part  of  his  work,  he  has  occasion  to  refer  back 
to  them.  Of  this  we  have  a  striking  instance  in  the  horror 
with  which  the  dying  Jacob  regards  the  incestuous  conduct 
of  his  eldest  son,  and  the  wanton  cruelty  of  two  of  the 
others.  See  xlix.  4 — 7.  The  success  which  attended  Re- 
becca's crafty  project  is  no  more  an  impeachment  of  the 
divine  wisdom  and  goodness,  than  are  many  other  results 
which  the  providence  of  God  allows  to  crown  the  efforts  of 
ambitious  and  selfish  hypocrisy,  AH  events  of  this  kind  do 
but  confirm  the  truth,  that  human  frailty  and  passion  are 
made  subservient  to  the  divine  will, 

(108.)  For  the  various  meanings  assigned  to  the  word 
*T^"]sri,  see  Rosenmiiller  and  Dathe  in  loc,  and  particularly 
ScHROEDER,  in  his  Observationes  ad  Origines  Hebraeas,  cap. 
\,  §  9.     See  also  Gesenius  under  T^*l,  No.  2. 

(109.)  Compare  Note  (57.) 

(110.)  The  doctrine  of  a  particillar  providence,  extending 
on  suitable  occasions  even  so  far  as  to  miraculous  inflluence, 
seems  plainly  intimated  by  the  symbol  of  the  ladder  and  the 
angels,  and  the  allusion  to  it  made  by  our  Lord  in  reference 
to  himself  in  John  i.  51.  The  instruction  and  consolation 
thus  afforded  to  Jacob  could  not  have  been  conveyed  by  any 
more  appropriate  emblem.  The  notion,  that  the  doctrine  of 
angels,  either  good  or  bad,  is  of  Babylonian  or  Persian  ori- 
gin, and  was  incorporated  into  Jewish  theology  after  the 
captivity,  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  Scripture  ;  and,  if 
admitted,  would  destroy  the  credibility  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment history.  Nothing  can  be  clearer,  than  that  the  au- 
thors! represent  the  patriarchs  themselves,  and  the  Hebrew 


CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  309 

worthies  in  general,  as  believing  in  the  existence  of  angels, 
and  recognizing  their  influence  in  human  affairs. 

(111.)  The  erection  of  pillars  for  religious  purposes,  and 
anointing  them  with  oil,  is  of  high  antiquity.  They  received 
the  name  of  iSai'hvXia,  probably  from  bi!:~fT^!ll,  and  are  men- 
tioned occasionally  as  animated  stones.  See  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Strom.  Lib.  VII.  p.  713,  Sylburg's  edition,  and 
Sanconiathon  in  Eusebius,  Evang.  Prep.  Lib.  I.  cap.  x. 
p.  37,  Cologne  edition,  1688.  Jacob  raises  his  pillar  merely 
as  commemorative  ;  but  the  heathen  paid  to  theirs  a  species 
of  divine  adoration.  See  Rosenmiiller  in  loc,  and  particu- 
lar his  Alte  und  Neue  Morgenland,  Vol.  I.  p.  125—128.— 
The  twentieth  verse  does  not  imply  indecision  in  Jacob's 
purpose.  Since  God  had  promised  to  bless  him,  he  vows 
obedience  as  an  expression  of  his  gratitude. 

According  to  the  Masoretical  accentuation,  which  is  fol- 
lowed by  our  English  translation,  the  patriarch's  vow  com- 
mences with  the  latter  clause  of  the  twenty-first  verse :  "  then 
shall  the  Lord  be  my  God."  And  certainly  the  sense  is 
good  and  clear  ;  '  I  will  devote  myself  to  the  service  of  Je- 
hovah,' in  contradistinction  to  that  of  any  false  God.  In  the 
opinion  of  Hengstenberg,  however,  (ubi  sup.  p.  370,  371,) 
this  clause  precedes  the  commencement  of  the  vow,  thus : 
*  Since  God  will  be  with  me,  &c. — and  Jehovah  is  my  God ; 
this  stone,  &c.'  He  argues  in  favor  of  this  construction 
from  the  tense  of  tl^Hl,  whereas  the  following  verbs  n.^HI 
and  ^i^^_^  are  future  in  their  form.  This  is  of  little  mo- 
ment, as  the  van  is  conversive.  But,  to  declare  as  part  of  a 
vow,  that  Jehovah  should  be  one's  God,  that  the  benefitted 
party  would  accept  him  as  protector  and  Lord,  is  not  accor- 
dant with  scriptural  usage,  which  always,  as  the  author 
says,  embodies  the  grateful  feeling  in  some  outward  action. 
Besides,  the  thirteenth  verse  seems  to  confirm  this  construci 


310  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  is. 

tion :  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  thy  father,  and  the  God 
of  Isaac."  This  iUustrates  the  language  of  Jacob  :  '  since 
Jehovah  is  to  me  what  he  declared  himself  to  have  been  to 
Abraham  and  Isaac  ;'  and  it  is  confirmed  by  the  declaration 
in  the  fifteenth  verse,  "  I  am  with  thee,  and  will  keep  thee  in 
all  places  whither  thou  goest,  and  will  bring  thee  again  to 
this  land."  The  last  clause,  *  and  Jehovah  is  my  God,'  con- 
centrates, as  it  were,  all  that  the  holy  man  had  just  said,  im- 
plying guidance,  protection,  security,  and  happy  restoration 
to  the  promised  land,  and  the  paternal  home. 

(112.)  MicHAELis  supposes  that  Jacob  received  Leah  at 
the  commencement  of  the  seven  stipulated  years,  and  that 
the  chronology  requires  this  admission.  Usher,  in  his  chro- 
nology, and  Junius  and  Tremellius  in  their  note  on  this 
place,  maintain  the  same  opinion.  So  also  Richardson, 
Bishop  of  Ardagh,  in  his  very  useful  "  Observations  upon 
the  Book  of  Genesis,"  London,  1655,  on  v.  20.  But  the 
language  of  the  twenty-first  verse  is  evidently  unfavorable 
to  this  view.  It  is  very  harsh  to  render  ^)2'^  ^^^J^,  as  the 
last  mentioned  author  does,  "  my  days  are  filled  or  filling 
up,"  that  is,  I  am  advancing  in  age  ;  or,  with  the  first,  '  I 
am  quite  marriageable,  and  can  no  longer  defer  making  such 
a  connexion,  unless  I  forego  the  hope  of  having  a  family.' 
Whatever  Jacob's  age  may  have  been  at  this  time,  we 
know  he  must  have  lived  fifty  years  beyond  it,  when  he  was 
presented  to  Pharaoh,  (compare  xlvii.  9,  with  xlv.  6,  xli. 
47,  46,  xxxi.  41,  and  xxx.  25  ss.  ;)  and  it  is  evident,  that 
neither  his  age  nor  constitution  and  habits  correspond  with 
such  a  construction.  Besides,  the  Hebrew  will  not  bear 
it.  The  ordinary  phrase  to  express  advanced  age  is, 
Q''?5^5  !^^  "jpT.  See  Josh.  xiii.  1,  xxiii.  2,  1  Kings  i.  1,  and 
a  similar  form  in  1  Sam.  xii.  2.     ^j)2,  when  used  in  con- 


CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  311 

nexion  with  time,  means  '  to  fill  up,  expire,  complete,'  desig- 
nating accomplishment  or  end,  never  advancement  or  pro- 
gress. Thus  1  Sam.  xviii.  26,  "  the  days  were  not  expired, 
^i5b)2,"  that  is,  the  time  appointed  had  not  come  to  an  end  ; 
Levit.  xii.  4,  "  until  the  days  of  her  purifying  have  expired 
il5!ib/2-15? ;"  XXV.  30,  "  until  the  expiration  ilJSib^^-li?  of  a 
full  year  ;"  Num.  vi.  5,  13  ;  Jer.  xxv.  34,  "  for  your  days — are 
accomplished,"  or  expired,  Q^"^^"^.  ^J^^^""^!?  ;  also  xxix.  10  ; 
Dan.  X.  3.  There  are  no  exceptions  to  this  meaning.  In 
Jer.  vi.  11,  "  the  aged  with  D^)2^  Utib'O"  signifies  '  with  him 
who  has  accomplished  his  days,'  as  we  would  say,  is  just  ex- 
piring, not  him  who  is  advancing  in  age  ;  so  also  Lam.  iv. 
18.  In  2  Sam.  vii.  12,  and  the  parallel  place  1  Chron.  xvii. 
11,  the  phrase  "when  thy  days  be  fulfilled"  or  "expired" 
means, '  when  thy  life  is  ended,'  as  the  words  immediately 
following  prove.  The  view  given  by  Michaelis  and  Rich- 
ardson is  not  supported  by  usage.  The  chronological  dif- 
ficulties alluded  to  must  therefore  be  removed  in  some 
other  way. 

(113.)  The  term  "  hated"  in  v.  31  is  comparative,  imply- 
ing very  inferior  regard,  as  the  preceding  verse  intimates ; 
and  in  this  sense  it  is  often  used  in  Scripture.  See  Luke 
xiv.  26  :  "  if  any  man  come  to  me  and  hate  not  his  father, 
&c." ;  Rom.  ix.  13,  compared  with  Mai.  i.  3 :  "Jacob  have  I 
loved,  but  Esau  have  I  hated  ;"  and  Deut.  xxi.  15 — 17  :  "  if 
a  man  have  two  wives,  one  beloved  and  another  hated." 

(114.)  Reuben,  "(i ^5^1,  means  literally, ' see  a  son;'  but 
the  former  part  of  the  name  is  not  the  ordinary  word  for 
'see,  behold,'  (although  it  is  occasionally  so  used,  as  in  xxxix. 
14,)  which  is  HSri,  and  the  context  shows  that  it  alludes  to 
the  Lord's  having;  seen  the  mother's  affliction.     When  the 


312  Notes  to  genesis.  [part  ix. 

slighted  and  mortified  Leah  became  the  mother  of  a  son^ 
she  cried  out,  under  a  feehng  of  the  triumph  which,  (ac- 
cording to  the  spirit  of  the  time  and  people,)  she  supposed 
herself  to  have  gained,  "  see,  a  son !"  and  this  name  she  im- 
poses on  the  infant,  as  a  lasting  monument  of  her  own  honor 
and  a  disgrace  to  her  competitor  for  the  husband's  favor : 
"for  she  said,  surely  the  Lord  hath  looked  upon  my  affliction^ 
'^'^53'!ll  niri^  n55^1~''3.  in  those  words,  she  does  not  refer  to 
the  name  Reuben,  the  derivation  and  meaning  of  which  are 
clear  enough  of  themselves,  but  to  the  fact  of  her  being 
permitted  to  make  the  declaration,  to  the  painful  reminis- 
cences which  were  connected  with  the  name.  Her  lan- 
guage contains  a  paronomasia,  and  adheres  as  closely  as 
possible  to  the  origin  of  the  former  part  of  the  word  and  the 
sound  of  the  latter.  Any  other  connexion  of  the  words  is 
not  to  be  thought  of. 

Thus,  for  substance,  Drechsler,  ubi  sup.  p.  212,  213.  He 
proceeds  to  add  :  '  How  ridiculously  pedantic,  then,  for  lex- 
icographers of  the  nineteenth  century  seriously  to  examine 
whether  Leah's  words  are  consistent  with  conjugation  and 
declension."  No  doubt  he  alludes  to  Gesenius,  who,  under 
the  word  lIl^JJ^'l,  remarks  as  follows :  "  See  ye,  a  son  I 
although  the  author  of  Genesis,  in  xxix.  32,  seems  to  ex- 
plain the  name  as  being  for  ^'^pl^lll  ['^^i^'l]  ^!>^!^  provided  for 
my  affliction."  The  language  of  the  critic  will  hardly  be 
considered  too  caustic,  when  we  reflect  that  the  lexicogra- 
pher's remark  seems  to  imply  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the 
Hebrew  author  himself 

Simeon,  llS'^'ffi,  is  from  ^12'^  '  to  hear ;'  and  it  implies 
Leah's  domestic  calamity,  and  also  her  belief  that  the  Lord 
had  not  forgotten  her.  Levi,  '^ib,  from  tl^b  'to  join,'  denotes 
the  union  of  heart  which  the  tried,  yet  happy  mother  hopes 
may  result.     Judah,  H'l^tT;',  from  HT  in  Hiphil,  '  to  praise. 


CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.]       NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  313 

expresses  her  gratitude  to  God,  in  which  every  other  con- 
sideration seems  to  be  absorbed. 


(115.)  Dan  is  derived  from  the  root  V\  'to  judge,'  mean- 
ing, to  espouse  the  cause  of,  as  where  God  is  said  to  "judge 
his  people  ;"  and  where  it  is  commanded  to  "  judge  the 
fatherless."  See  Heb.  x.  30,  Deut.  xxxii.  36,  Isa.  i.  17. — 
Naphthali  is  a  word  formed  from  the  root  bins,  '  to  strive, 
wrestle,'  implying  that  she  had  used  all  her  efforts  to  equal 
her  sister,  and  had  succeeded. 

(116.)  The  word  I^S,  according  to  the  reading  in  the 
margin  1^  b^^,  means  '  good  fortune  comes  ;'  according  to 
that  in  the  text,  with  a  slight  change  in  the  punctuation  of 
the  first  letter,  it  signifies,  '  with  good  fortune,'  that  is, '  hap- 
pily, auspiciously,'  £v  tu-xj],  as  it  is  in  the  Septuagint.  The 
sense  of  "  troop"  is  unsupported.  In  Gen.  xlix.  19,  the  simi- 
larity of  15  and  m!i  is  the  sole  ground  of  the  alliteration. 
Compare  v.  29. — In  the  thirteenth  verse,  our  translators  have 
followed  the  Septuagint,  (j-axa^ia  eyw-  the  Uteral  version  of 
the  Hebrew  is,  '  with,'  or  '  for  my  happiness' ;  that  is,  the 
birth  of  this  son  will  contribute  to  it. 

(117.)  IptUlS'^   or  l^bip?   is   probably  contracted   from 
*lDb  ^b\  '  will  bring  hire.' 

(118.)  The  paronomasia  is  a  favorite  figure  with  the  He- 
brews, and  may  often  be  traced  in  the  application  of  names. 
And  if  this  play  upon  a  word  comprehends  an  allusion  to 
more  ideas  than  one,  it  is  considered  as  so  much  the  more 
spirited.  Hence  it  is  that  Rachel,  at  the  birth  of  her  first 
son,  applies  the  term  Joseph  in  a  two-fold  respect ;  in  part, 
as  she  connects  with  him  the  wish,  that  the  Lord  may  add 
40 


314  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  IX. 

yet  one  more,  OHib^  "jS  "^b  niri"]  V[Q'^,)  xxx.  24,  and  in  part, 
as  she  combines  CjDT^  with  CjOSS^  in  the  former  verse,  "  God 
hath  taken  away  my  reproach."  The  reader  who  examines 
the  two  verses  carefully,  will  see  that  neither  of  them  can 
be  removed  without  injuring  the  sense,  which  requires  the 
ideas  conveyed  by  both  to  be  combined. 

The  combination  in  the  latter  clause  of  v.  20  is  of  a  still 
freer  kind.  Leah  calls  her  son  Zebulon,  in  order  to  bring  in 
a  paronomasia  of  ^ST  to  dwell  with,  and  15|  to  endow. 
See  the  former  part  of  the  verse. 

(119.)  "  Ten  times  ;"  that  is,  often,  a  definite  for  an  inde- 
finite number.  See  Num.  xiv.  22. — The  Septuagint  has 
<rwv  5sxa  a/j-vojv,  for  an  explanation  of  which  see  Schleusner's 
Lexicon  in  Septuaginta  under  a^j^vog- 

(120.)  As  the  latter  part  of  v.  13,  "  now  arise,  &c."  can- 
not be  a  direction  given  to  Jacob  at  the  time  of  the  dream 
just  mentioned,  v,  10,  &c.,  it  is  probable,  that  it  is  a  repeti- 
tion, made  by  Jacob  to  his  wives,  of  that  mentioned  in  the 
third  verse. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  thought  by  some  readers,  that  the  sub- 
ject of  this  dream  of  Jacob  is  of  such  a  nature,  as  to  be  in- 
consistent with  the  supposition  of  a  divine  communication. 
To  remove  the  difficulty,  it  has  been  said,  that  the  whole 
occurrence  is  nothing  but  a  dream ;  that  Jacob's  mind, 
dwelling  on  Laban's  unworthy  attempts  to  injure  him,  na- 
turally revolved  the  matter  even  in  sleep;  that  the  strate- 
gem  thus  occurring  to  him  in  the  ordinary  progress  of 
thought,  while  in  this  state,  is  ascribed  by  him  to  God's 
angel,  on  the  cherished  supposition,  that  whatever  tended  to 
his  welfare  originated  with  that  divine  being  to  whose  service 
he  had  devoted  himself;  or  else,  on  another  principle,  that 


CHAP.xxv.  19— XXXV.29.]       NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  315 

whatever  is  allowed  in  the  providence  of  God  is,  in  scrip- 
tural language,  ascribed  to  God  himself.  Although  the 
principle  and  supposition  are  both  true  ;  and,  although  it 
should  be  granted,  that  the  waking  emotions  of  Jacob  might 
have  suggested  to  his  mind  while  asleep  such  an  idea  as  the 
narrative  conveys ;  the  interpretation  offered  by  this  view 
of  the  matter  cannot  be  admitted.  Any  other  view  than 
that  of  a  divine  communication  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
words,  is  inconsistent  with  the  language  of  the  text.  The 
natural  thoughts  of  the  mind,  whether  the  party  be  awake 
or  asleep,  are  never  expressed  in  language  like  this  :  "  and 
the  angel  of  God  spake  unto  me,  &c.  ;"  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  this  language  is  entirely  analogous  to  that  elsewhere 
employed  to  denote  divine  communications.  These  are 
sometimes  ascribed  to  God,  sometimes  to  the  Lord,  and 
sometimes  to  the  angel  of  God  or  of  the  Lord.  It  cannot 
then  be  denied,  that  such  a  communication  is  here  intended. 
Neither,  indeed,  is  the  nature  of  it  inconsistent  with  this 
belief.  It  is  no  more  derogatory  to  the  purity  and  dignity 
of  the  divine  being,  to  admit  that  he  made  such  a  communi- 
cation in  an  extraordinary  way,  in  order  to  effect  one  part 
of  his  great  scheme  by  increasing  the  wealth  and  reputation 
of  the  patriarch,  than  it  would  be  to  admit  that  Providence 
allowed  him,  by  a  close  observation  of  nature,  to  perceive 
the  bearing  and  influence  of  external  circumstances  in  pro- 
ducing such  a  result  as  the  narrative  mentions.  The  opera- 
tions of  nature  are  the  effects  of  the  laws  which  the  God  of 
nature  has  imposed  on  his  works ;  and  it  cannot  possibly  be 
inconsistent  with  the  purity  and  dignity  of  the  lawgiver,  to 
allow  that  he  may  disclose  those  laws  in  any  method  most 
agreeable  to  him,  whenever,  in  his  wisdom,  important  ends 
are  thereby  to  be  answered. 

(12L)  Some  commentators  remark  that  Laban  ought  to 


816  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  IX. 

have  allowed  his  two  daughters  the  value  of  Jacob's  four- 
teen years'  service  as  their  dowry.  The  ordinary  usage 
seems  to  have  been,  for  the  son-in-law  to  give  a  dowry  to 
.  the  father.  See  xxxiv.  12,  1  Sam.  xviii.  23,  25,  27.  It  is 
said,  however,  that  occasionally  the  father  paid  one.  See 
Jahn's  Archaeology,  §  153.  The  language  of  Laban's 
daughters  is  quite  explicable  on  the  ground  of  their  father's 
contemptible  and  unnatural  behaviour. 

(122.)  For  an  account  of  these  images,  see  the  commen- 
tators, particularly  Drusius,  (in  the  Critici  Sacri,)  on  v.  19, 
notae  majores,  and  De  Muis :  also,  Calmet's  Dictionary  under 
the  word.  He  gives  a  view  of  the  absurd  notions  of  some 
of  the  Jewish  rabbins  on  the  nature  and  uses  of  the  tera- 
phim;  and  Buxtorf,  in  his  Talmudic  Lexicon,  (col.  2660 — 4,) 
quotes  largely  from  these  writers.  The  teraphim  were 
probably  a  sort  of  household  gods,  stolen  by  Rachel  from 
superstitious  and  perhaps  idolatrous  motives.  Compare 
XXXV.  2,  4. 

(123.)  Jegar  sahadutha  is  Syriac,  and  of  the  same  im- 
port as  Galeed  in  Hebrew,  that  is,  '  heap  of  witness,'  heap 
which  attests.  Parkhurst  under  ly^  contends,  that  the  for- 
mer words  are  Hebrew,  meaning,  "  may  the  witness  of  the 
appointed  bounds  (be)  a  terror  (to  us.)"  He  follows  Julius 
Bate's  New  and  Literal  Translation.  Compare  his  Critica 
Hebrasa,  or  Hebrew  and  English  Dictionary,  under  "lIT©. 
But  the  form  of  the  words  allows  no  such  signification. 
They  are  pure  Syriac,  exactly  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew 
used  by  Jacob.  Mizpah,  the  other  name,  means  '  watch- 
tower.'  See  the  Lexicons. — In  v.  53,  the  clause,  "  the  God 
of  their  father,"  is  probably  the  parenthetical  remark  of  the 
author.     This  is  the  opinion  of  Aben  Ezra,  in  which  Rosen- 


CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.]        N0TE3    TO    GENESIS.  317 

miiller  acquiesces.     Considered  as  the  language  of  Laban, 
it  embarrasses  the  sentence. 

(124.)  The  notion  of  De  Wette  and  some  other  German 
rationalists,  that  this  narrative  is  a  historical  mythus,  that  is, 
a  fiction,  invented  to  give  a  reason  for  the  name  Mahanaim, 
which  occurs  in  Jos.  xx.  38,  is  unworthy  of  serious  refuta- 
tion. Why  should  a  reason  of  this  sort  be  devised  to  ac- 
count for  this  particular  name,  while  a  multitude  of  others 
equally  significant  and  important,  are  unaccounted  for  ? 

(125.)  Septuagint:  oVs  sviVjj^utfaj:  (xem  2rsS,  xa?  (xs-m  av&^w'rwv 
(Juvarog  £(fy]-  Vulgate :  quoniam  si  contra  Deum  fortis  fuisti, 
quanto  majis  contra  homines  prsevalebis.  Rosenmiiller  re- 
marks after  Le  Clerc,  that  T\^b  never  has  the  sense  of 
strength  or  victory.  That  may  be,  and  yet  the  idea  may  be 
implied  from  the  circumstances  in  which  the  word  is  used  : 
i"©^  means  to  dwell,  and  yet  it  sometimes  implies  the  idea 
of  security ;  Qnb?  means  to  fight,  but  in  2  Kings  xvi.  5,  and 
Isa.  vii.  1,  it  expresses  prevailing  in  war.  The  English 
translation  of  t1^"li9  "as  a  prince  hast  thou  power,"  combines 
the  meaning  of  the  verb  with  that  of  'T©  a  prince,  following 
the  Chaldee  Targum,  which  has,  "  for  a  prince  art  thou  be- 
fore Jehovah."  Jerome  also,  in  his  Questions  on  Genesis, 
Tom.  II.  Col.  536,  Paris.  1699,  (or  as  cited  by  Drusius  in 
loc.,)  gives  the  same  view.  There  may  be  an  intended 
allusion  to  the  meaning  of  nb,  but  this  is  by  no  means  ne- 
cessary or  certain.  The  sense  suggested  by  the  Septuagint 
and  Vulgate  versions,  is  probably  the  true  one  :  '  thou  hast 
prevailed  (contended  successfully)  with  God,  much  more 
Shalt  thou  be  mighty  against  men.'  The  term  Israel  is 
therefore  expressive  of  extraordinary  distinction  in  opposi- 


318  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  IX. 

tion  to  that  of  Jacob,  a  supplanter.     See  Hos.  xii.  3,  4 ;  1 
Kings  xviii.  31  ;  2  Kings  xvii.  34. 

(126.)  The  word  ^'J^il  in  v.  26,  is  rendered  in  our  trans- 
lation, "  was  out  of  joint."  Inasmuch,  however,  as  this  is 
the  only  place  in  which  it  is  supposed  to  have  this  meaning, 
which  seems  also  to  be  hardly  compatible  with  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  I  cannot  but  doubt  the  correctness  of 
the  version.  The  idea  of  being  contracted,  drawn  away, 
hanging  loose  from,  the  cavity  of  the  thigh,  suits  the  con- 
text, and  is  in  analogy  with  the  signification  in  which  the 
word  is  elsewhere  used.  It  occurs  but  nine  times,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  text :  in  Kal  and  Niphal  in  Jer.  vi.  8,  Ezek.  xxiii. 
17,  18,  22,  28  ;  and  in  Hiphil  and  Hophal  in  Num.  xxv.  4, 
2  Sam.  xxi.  6,  9,  13.  In  ail  these  texts,  it  has  the  sense  of 
being  alienated  from,  or  of  hanging. — On  the  Jewish  usage 
to  abstain  from  the  part  referred  to,  the  Talmud  contains 
several  precepts.  See  the  Treatise  I'^blH,  on  profane 
things,  chap.  vii.  Mishna,  edition  of  Surenhusius,  Part  V.  p. 
140—142. 

(127.)  The  word  "blessing"  in  v.  11,  is  equivalent  to 
"  present"  in  v.  10,  and  is  often  used  in  this  sense.  See  1 
Sam.  xxv.  27. 

(128.)  By  comparing  v.  12  and  14,  it  seems  that  Esau  in- 
vited Jacob  to  accompany  him  to  Seir.  Whether  Jacob  in- 
tended to  follow  his  brother  there,  and  was  afterwards 
induced  to  change  his  mind,  and  whether,  at  any  subsequent 
period,  he  went  or  not,  we  are  not  informed.  The  difficul- 
ties which  must  have  impeded  the  further  migration  of  so 
numerous  a  family,  with  all  that  belonged  to  them,  and  es- 
pecially the  divine  direction  to  return  to  Canaan,  (xxxi.  13,) 


CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  319 

are  sufficient  to  account  for  his  avoiding  such  a  journey, 
without  supposing  that  he  still  apprehended  hostility  on  the 
part  of  his  brother. 

(129.)  Interpreters,  both  ancient  and  modern,  differ  in 
translating  the  first  clause  of  the  eighteenth  verse.  The 
Targum  and  other  highly  respectable  authorities,  consider 
the  word  "  shalem"  as  an  adjective,  meaning  safe  (or  safely,) 
as  it  is  used  in  Nahum  i.  12,  analogous  to  its  ordinary  sense 
of  sound,  perfect.  So  Dathe,  Augusti,  Rosenmiiller,  and 
Gesenius.  Thus  it  may  refer  to  the  recovery  of  Jacob's 
thigh,  to  the  safety  of  his  family  and  property,  and,  in  gene- 
ral, to  his  deliverance  from  the  various  dangers  to  which  he 
had  been  exposed.  "  SbtU  :  sound  in  his  body,  which  had 
recovered  of  its  halting  ;  sound  in  his  property,  which  had 
not  diminished  ;  sound  in  his  religion,  which  he  had  not  ne- 
glected during  his  residence  with  Laban."  Rashi.  "  d^tU 
is  an  adjective  ;  and  the  meaning  is,  that  he  came  safe,  that 
no  unfortunate  event  had  occurred  to  him  :  for  he  had  not 
yet  recorded  the  affair  of  Dinah."  Aben  Ezra.  Drechsler 
supposes  also  a  reference  to  the  language  of  Jacob's  con- 
ditional vow  in  xxviii.  21.  "Here,"  says  he,  "is  a  great 
point  in  the  patriarch's  life.  The  dark  hours  of  foreign  pil- 
grimage and  service  are  succeeded  by  the  bright  day  of  glo- 
riously accomplished  promise.  He  had  said,  "  so  that  I 
come  again  to  my  father's  house  in  peace,  Qljtplll ;  now  he 
comes  Dbtl?  to  Sichem."  p.  147.  But  if  such  a  reference 
were  intended,  I  should  suppose  that  the  same  word  would 
have  been  employed  in  both  places. — Others  again,  follow- 
ing the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate,  explain  the  word  as  the 
name  of  the  city  in  the  vicinity  of  which  he  settled.  Thus 
our  English  translation,  and  also  the  German  of  Luther.  I 
am  strongly  disposed  to  believe  that  this  is  right ;  other- 


320  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  IX. 

wise  the  name  of  the  city  is  ziot  designated,  and  such  an 
omission  is  unusual,  Shechem  is  the  name  of  the  man  who 
makes  so  prominent  a  figure  in  the  subsequent  chapter.  This 
is  proved  by  the  next  verse,  and  the  repeated  use  of  the 
word  in  the  narrative  which  immediately  follows  ;  although 
it  is  true  that  there  was  a  place  which  bore  the  same  name. 
See  xxxvii.  12  ss.  The  translation  in  the  Septuagint  is, 
Shalem,  a  city  of  the  Sichemites,  "toXiu  Sixijxajv,  and  that  of 
the  Vulgate,  urbem  Sichemorum.  Rosenmiiller's  and  Dathe's 
"venit  Sichemum,"  "pervenit  Sichemum,"  (meaning  the  city 
Sichem,)  are  inadmissible  ;  as,  in  such  cases,  the  usage  re- 
quires the  article  before  the  word  city,  as  in  Esther  iii.  15, 
and  viii.  15,  "jtri^'©  l^^^tl.  In  the  text  it  is  simply  Dpt?'  T3? 
without  the  article,  and  I  think  it  ought  not  to  be  rendered 
*the  city  Shechem,'  but,  'a  city  of  Shechem,'  or  'Shechem's 
city,'  that  is,  a  place  under  the  government  of  this  person, 
who  is  immediately  afterwards  called  "  the  prince  of  the 
country,"  xxxiv.  2.  This,  I  believe,  agrees  with  the  invaria- 
ble usage.  Thus  we  have  in  Num.  xxi.  28,  llT^G  tT]^p)?2 
fro77i  Sihon^s  city ;  and  in  Samuel  and  Chronicles,  David's 
city  is  always  "m  'T'5'  or  T'l'l,  never  "l'^?'!l.  If,  therefore, 
Shalem  is  not  the  name  of  a  place,  no  city  is  specified ; 
unless,  indeed,  the  phrase  '  Shechem's  city'  were  in  the  au- 
thor's age  sufficiently  definite  for  this  purpose.  As  this  may 
be  so,  I  have  thought  it  best  to  retain  the  expression  safely, 
in  the  Analysis.  Whether  this  is  implied  in  the  original 
word  or  not,  it  is  no  doubt  implied  in  the  narration. 

I  find,  after  writing  this  note,  that  Mendelsohn's  translation 
is :  "  Jacob  came  safely  to  Shechem's  city." 

(130.)  The  literal  translation  of  the  last  clause  is  :  *  and 
he  called  it  God,  the  God  of  Israel.'  Such  names,  applied 
to  places,  occur  elsewhere.  See  the  last  words  in  Ezekiel, 
and  also  Jer.  xxxiii.  16,  (ad  fin.)  which  cannot  be  proved  to 


CHAP.sxv.lO— XXSV.29  ]         NOTES     TO    GENESIS.  321 

relate  to  any  other  object  than  Jerusalem.  It  is  as  if  the 
patriarch  had  said,  '  I  have  experienced  that  God  is  the  God 
of  Israel,  and  this  altar  I  erect  as  a  memorial  of  his  mercies. 
Gratitude  compels  the  avowal.'  The  name  of  God  is  ap- 
plied to  the  object  whereby  or  wherein  he  is  honored. 
Still,  there  may  be  an  ellipsis  of  altar ;  or  bli<5  may  be  un- 
derstood in  a  genitive  sense,  and  the  meaning  be:  'he  called 
it  God's,'  the  next  words  being  explanatory.  The  Septua- 
gint,  s-KcxoO^daro  rov  Ssov  'l(f^ur]\,  'he  invoked  the  God  of 
Israel,'  and  the  Vulgate,  invocavit  super  illud  fortissimum 
Deum  Israelis,  do  not  accord  with  the  Hebrew.  The  for- 
mer omits  any  notice  of  the  words  bi!5  lb,  and  the  latter 
gives  to  1b~5^'1p.'^l  the  sense  of 'invoking  upon,' while  its 
ordinary  meaning  is  to  name,  as  in  Gen.  i.  5,  7,  and  in  many 
other  places. 

(131.)  The  phrase,  "  to  work  folly  in  (or,  against)  Israel, 
DJj^'ltp^lZl/'  is  thought  by  some  to  be  of  later  origin  than  that 
period  in  which  the  book  of  Genesis  is  supposed  to  have 
been  written.  It  occurs  in  Josh.  vii.  15,  Judg.  xx.  10.  But, 
although  in  these  places  Israel  is  used  for  the  nation,  the 
phrase  may  have  originated  fi'om  the  very  text  before  us. 
The  language  is  not  indicative  of  a  later  age  than  that  of  the 
patriarch  himself. 

(132.)  While  the  cruel  and  crafty  plot  of  Jacob's  sons 
deserves  the  severest  reprobation,  it  is  evident,  and  espe- 
cially from  V.  23,  that  the  Shechemites  also  acted  with  du. 
plicity  and  from  interested  motives.  They  were  over- 
reached by  the  superior  management  of  their  enemies. 

(133.)  The  expression,  "terror  of  God,"  in  v.  5,  is  con- 
sidered by  some  as  a  Hebraism,  for  '  great  terror,'  as  in 
xxiii.  6,  '  a  prince  of  God,'  for  "  a  mighty  prince,"  and  xxx. 
41 


322  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  IX. 

8,  '  wrcstlingjs  of  God,'  for  "great  wrestlings,"  and  else- 
where. Inasmuch,  however,  as  an  extraordinary  provi- 
dence often  superintended  and  controlled  the  affairs  of  the 
patriarchs  and  their  families,  the  view  suggested  in  the  Ana- 
lysis is  preferable.  Compare  Exod.  xxiii.  27:  "I  will  send 
my  fear  before  thee." 

(134.)  Compare  xxxiii.  20,  which  is  probably  parallel. 
Thus  the  meaning  will  be :  '  he  called  the  place,  God  of 
Bethel.' — Another  view  is  admissible  :  '  he  called  the  place 
of  God,'  (that  is,  the  place  consecrated  to  God,)  'Bethel';  or, 
'  he  called  the  place,  God's,  Bethel.'  Thus  the  last  words, 
meaning  '  God's  house,'  will  be  explanatory. 

(135.)  The  space  denoted  by  the  original  word  <T^i?5 
cannot  be  determined.  From  the  etymology,  it  would  seem 
to  imply  a  considerable  distance:  but  this  must,  of  course, 
be  relative.  In  2  Kings  v.  19,  the  distance  which  it  denotes 
could  not  have  been  great.  See  Gesenius  under  the  word, 
Schleusner's  Thesaurus  Veteris  Testamenti,  under  x",^"^"- 
and  'I'TT'TroiJ^o/xoj. 

(136.)  The  name  Benjamin,  ']''!p!^55,  is  thought  by  several 
commentators  to  m^an,  *  son  of  old  age,'  l"^^^  being  taken 
as  the  Chaldee  form,  for  '  days.'  But  the  evident  antithesis 
between  Benoni,  '  son  of  my  sorrow,'  and  Benjamin,  shows 
that  the  latter  must  denote  excellence  or  happiness  of  some 
kind.  The  parallelism  in  Ps.  Ixxx.  18,  (17,)  suggests  the 
idea  of  strength,  and  this  is  probably  what  the  name  im- 
plies, as  the  right  hand  is  more  vigorous  and  efficient  than 
the  left. 

(137.)  As   all  Jacob's   children,  except  Benjamin,  were 


CHAP.  XXV.  19— XXXV. 29.]        NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  323 

born  in  Mesopotamia,  the  historian  does  not  think  it  neces- 
sary to  mention  this  one  in  particular.  His  language  is 
popular  rather  than  exact.  Thus  in  1  Cor.  xv.  5,  it  is  said, 
that  Christ  appeared  "  to  the  twelve,"  although  the  suicide 
of  Judas  had  reduced  the  number  of  the  apostles  to  eleven; 
and  in  Luke  xxiv.  33,  "  the  eleven"  are  said  to  have  been 
"  gathered  together,"  although  we  are  elsewhere  informed 
that  Thomas  was  not  one  of  their  number.  See  John  xxi. 
24,  where  again  the  expression  is,  "  one  of  the  twelve."  All 
this  is  popular  language.  The  Scripture  abounds  with  it, 
and  the  failure  to  recognize  it  has  been  tt  prolific  source  of 
mistakes  and  difficulties. 


Part  X.     Chap,  xxxvi. 

(138.)  On  comparing  xxvi.  34,  with  the  second  verse  of 
this  chapter,  a  seeming  discrepancy  appears.  To  solve  it 
the  conjecture  has  been  advanced,  that,  the  names  designate 
different  persons,  thus:  (1)  Judith;  (2)  Bashemath,  the 
daughter  of  Elon ;  (3)  Adah,  another  daughter  of  Elon. 
The  supposition  of  Le  Clerc,  that  the  latter  of  these  names 
was  applied  by  Isaac  and  Rebecca  to  Bashemath,  in  refer- 
ence   to    her    character    and    conduct,  this   meaning  being 

drawn  from  the  Arabic  IJlc,  to  transgress,  act  wickedly, 
is  quite  improbable.  (4)  Aholibamah,  the  daughter  of  Anah; 
(5)  Bashemath,  the  daughter  of  Ishmael  ;  and  (6)  Mahalath, 
her  sister,  (xxviii,  9.)  According  to  this  view,  six  wives  of 
Esau  will  be  mentioned. 

Another  theory  removes  the  difficulty,  by  supposing  that 
each  of  these  women  appears  under  two  names,  thus  re- 
ducing the  number  of  his  wives  to  three.  Hengstenberg 
adopts  this  course.  See  his  Authentic  des  Pentateuches,  11.  p. 
273  ss.     He  identifies  the  Anah  of  xxxvi.  2,  24,  with  Beeri 


324  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  x. 

of  xxvi.  34,  who  derived  his  name  '^'^^.'2,  equivalent  to 
*  well'  or  '  spring  finder,'  from  the  discovery  of  warm 
springs  mentioned  in  xxxvi.  24.  This  is  now  generally 
acknowledged  by  critics  to  be  the  most  probable  meaning  of 
D'^^.'l,  which  is  rendered  in  our  translation,  "  mules."  This 
man,  who  in  xxxvi.  2,  is  called  a  Hivite,  is  named  a  Horite 
in  v.  20 ;  that  is,  he  belonged  to  that  subdivision  of  the 
Canaanitish  race  of  the  Hivites,  who,  from  their  residence 
in  caves,  were  known  as  Horites  or  Troglodytes,  from  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  words  respectively.  In  xxvi.  34,  the 
same  person,  if  Hengstenberg's  theory  is  correct,  is  called  a 
Hittite.  This  discrepancy  he  removes  by  showing  that  the 
term  Hittite,  although  it  originally  designated  a  single 
Canaanitish  tribe,  was,  like  the  name  Amorite,  employed  in 
a  broader  sense,  to  denote  the  whole  race.  Thus  in  Josh. 
i.  4,  "  the  land  of  the  Hittites"  comprehended  all  the  country 
of  the  Canaanites ;  in  1  Kings  x.  29,  we  read  of  "  all  the 
kings  of  the  Hittites  ;"  and  in  2  Kings  vii.  6,  "  the  king  of 
Israel"  is  said  to  have  "  hired  the  kings  of  the  Hittites."  With 
this  view  the  language  in  Ezek.  xvi.  3,  corresponds :  "  thy 
father  was  an  Amorite  and  thy  mother  a  Hittite."  So  in 
Gen.  xxvii.  46,  xxviii.  1,  the  Hittite  women  are  put  for 
Canaanitish  women  in  general.  Hence  it  is  clear,  that  the 
same  individual  might  be  a  Hivite  and  a  Hittite.  He  con- 
jectures that  all  the  wives  of  Esau  received  new  names  at  their 
marriage,  when  they  left  their  families,  by  which  names  they 
are  designated  in  xxxvi ;  Judith  (xxvi.  34,)  is  Aholibamah, 
Bashemath  is  Adah,  and  Mahalath  (xxviii.  9,)  is  Bashemath. 
How  closely  new  circumstances  and  new  names  are  con- 
nected in  the  east,  is  well  known ;  and  this  is  particularly 
true  of  females.     See  p.  277. 

If  neither  of  those  solutions  should  be  thought  altogether 
satisfactory,  we  cannot  be  surprised,  much  less  charge  the 


CHAP.  XXXVI.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  325 

author  with  contradiction,  if  we  consider  the  great  antiquity 
of  the  matter,  the  absence  of  all  other  data  than  those  con- 
tained in  the  Bible,  the  want  of.  analogy  with  modern  and 
occidental  usages  which  marked  the  ancient  state  of  things, 
and  the  want  of  importance  as  regards  ourselves  of  the 
whole  subject. 

(139.)  The  original  is  l^^l^^-b:^.  The  phrase  "  into  the 
country,"  which  is  used  in  the  English  translation,  does  not 
convey  the  meaning,  and  indeed,  in  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  two  brothers  then  were,  it  is  hardly  explicable. 
It  would  in  itself  seem  to  imply,  that  before  they  had  been 
together  in  some  city,  which  is  surely  unfounded  and  im- 
probable. 

(140.)  This  portion  contains  more  than  one  inscription. 
That  in  v.  1  is  general,  and  intended  for  the  whole  chapter. 
In  V.  5,  we  have  a  subscription,  referring  back  to  Esau's 
sons  born  in  Canaan.  The  remainder  of  the  chapter  is  in- 
troduced by  v.  9  ;  and  the  different  clauses  of  it  by  their 
own  appropriate  inscriptions.  All,  however,  is  perfectly 
natural,  and  not  a  trace  of  a  disjointed  or  fragmentary  com- 
position is  discoverable. 

(141.)  It  appears  that  v.  15 — 18  give  the  list  of  dukes 
(fi*'S^b!S5)  through  whom  the  Idumean  nation  originated  from 
Esau,  and  who  were  themselves  founders  of  as  many  lines ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  v.  40 — 43  specify  those  who 
flourished  in  the  time  of  Moses :  so  that  we  are  here  fur- 
nished with  the  condition  of  the  Idumean  people,  as  they 
were  divided  into  tribes  in  the  time  of  Moses,  in  the  reign 
of  the  last  named  eighth  king  Hadar,  or  Hadad,  as  he  is 


• 


326  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  x. 

called  in  the  first  book  of  Chronicles.  The  early  condition 
of  Edom's  national  existence  was  one  of  division.  This  will 
be  evident  to  any  who  attentively  examiiae  the  list  here  given 
of  its  kings,  which  does  not  afford  a  single  instance  of  re- 
gular succession  from  father  to  son.  We  may  therefore 
infer  without  hesitation,  that  the  political  condition  of  the 
people  was  the  very  opposite  of  stability.  And  this  is  not 
at  all  surprising,  as  the  immediately  preceding  period,  during 
which  the  old  inhabitants  of  the  country  were  driven  out  or 
subjected,  must  have  been  one  of  violence.  This  view  of 
the  subject  is  derived  in  part  from  the  expressions  in  v. 
40 — 43.  The  particular  importance  of  the  second  list  of 
dukes  here  exhibited,  and  its  specific  distinctions  from  the 
one  before  given,  appear  in  the  recurring  adjuncts  :  "  these 
are  the  dukes  of  Esau  according  to  their  families,  according 
to  their  places,  according  to  their  names,"  v,  40 ;  or,  "  accord- 
ing to  their  habitations  in  the  land  of  their  possession,^' 
v.  43.  These  adjuncts  plainly  denote,  that,  while  the  former 
list,  15 — 18,  gives  merely  the  genealogical  and  individual 
designation,  this  one  has  in  view  a  geographical  division  of 
the  race.  This  same  view  is  confirmed  by  1  Chron.  i.  51. 
There  it  is  said,  "Hadad  died  also,  and  then  {V\i'^.'\)  the  dukes 
of  Edom  were,  &c."  Thus  the  Idumean  dukes  are  repre- 
sented in  the  Chronicles  and  in  Genesis  in  connexion  with 
Hadad.  The  death  of  this  king  is  mentioned  in  Chronicles, 
but  not  by  Moses,  as  is  that  of  the  seven  who  preceded 
him.  Now,  if  the  period  of  Hadad's  government  coincides 
with  that  of  Moses,  (as  is  here  supposed  to  be  the  case,) 
this  peculiarity  in  the  narrative  is  explained.  And,  on  this 
theory,  the  fact  that  the  wife  of  the  eighth  king  is  the  only 
one  mentioned  by  name,  (Gen.  xxxvi.  39,)  is  also  susceptible 
of  explanation. 

Further,  it  is  clear  from  this  chapter,  that  among  the  Idu- 


CHAP.  XXXVI.] 


NOTES    TO    GENESIS. 


327 


means,  kings  and  dukes  were  contemporaneous.  This  state- 
ment is  in  iiarmony  with  Ex.  xv.  15,  "  the  dukes  of  Edom 
shall  be  amazed,"  and  Num.  xx.  14,  "  Moses  sent  messen- 
gers unto  the  king  of  Edom." 

The  connexion  of  this  chapter  with  the  preceding  and 
subsequent  ones,  is  worthy  of  notice.  As  the  section  xxv. 
12 — 18,  which  treats  of  Ishmael,  the  collateral  branch, 
refers  backwards  to  the  history  of  Abraham,  (xii.  1 — xxv. 
11,)  which  concludes  with  xxv.  1 — 11,  and  forwards  to  the 
history  of  Isaac,  (xxv.  19 — xxxv.  29,)  which  begins  with 
xxv.  19  ;  so  does  the  section,  chapter  xxxvi.,  relate  to  the 
preceding  chapter,  which  contains  a  brief  notice  of  Isaac,  and 
also  to  the  following,  which  keeps  in  view  the  story  of  Jacob. 
The  identity  of  the  author,  and  the  fact  of  his  being  gov- 
erned by  a  regular  plan,  are  manifestly  deducible  from  such 
premises.  And  this  will  be  still  more  evident,  if  we  com- 
pare xxxv.  23 — 26  with  xxv.  1 — 6,  and  xxxv.  27 — 29  with 
xxv.  7 — 9,  and  the  manner  in  which  xxv.  19  and  xxxvii.  2 
begin.  In  order  to  assist  the  reader  in  making  this  com- 
parison, I  shall  exhibit  the  places  respectively  in  parallel 
columns. 


xxxv. 23 — 26.  "  The  sons  of  Leah; 
Reuben,  Jacob's  first-born,  and  Simeon, 
and  Levi,  and  Judah,  and  Issachar, 
and  Zebulon. 

The  sons  of  Rachel ;  Joseph,  and 
Benjamin. 

And  the  sons  of  Bilhah,  Rachel's 
handmaid  :  Dan  and  Naphthali. 

And  the  sons  of  Zilpah,  Leah's 
handmaid ;  Gad  and  Asher.  These 
are  the  sons  of  Jacob,  &c." 


xxv.  1 — 6.  "  Then  again  Abraham 
took  a  wife,  &c. 

And  she  bare  him  Zimran  and 
Jokshan,  and  Medan,  and  Midian,  and 
Ishbak,  and  Shuah. 

And  Jokshan  be^at  Sheba,  and 
Dedan.  And  the  sons  of  Dedan  were, 
&c. 

And  the  sons  of  Midian,  Ephab, 
and  Epher,  &c.  All  these  were  the 
children  of  Keturah. 

And  Abraham  gave  all  that  he  had 
unto  Isaac. 

But  unto  the  sons  of  the  concubines, 
&c." 


328 


NOTES    TO    GENESIS. 


[part": 


XXXV.  27 — 29.  "  And  Jacob  came 
unto  Isaac  his  father  unto  Mamre, 
unto  the  city  of  Arbah,  which  is  He- 
bron, where  Abraham  and  Isaac  so- 
journed. 

And  the  days  of  Isaac  were  an 
hundred  and  fourscore  years. 

And  Isaac  gave  up  the  ghost,  and 
died,  and  was  gathered  unto  his  peo- 
ple, being  old  and  full  of  days  ;  and 
his  sons  Esau  and  Jacob  buried  him." 

(xxxvi.  Generations  of  Esau.) 


xxxvii.  2.  "  Tliese  are  the  genera- 
tions of  Jacob.  Joseph,  being  seven, 
teen  years  old,  &c." 


XXV.  7 — 9.  "  And  these  are  the  days 
of  the  years  of  Abraliam's  life  which 
he  lived,  an  hundred  threescore  and 
fifteen  years. 

And  Abraham  gave  up  the  ghost, 
and  died  in  a  good  old  age,  an  old 
man  and  full  of  years,  and  was 
gathered  to  his  people. 

And  his  sons  Isaac  and  Ishmael 
buried  him  in  the  cave,  &c." 


(xxv.  12 — 18.  Generations  of  Ish- 
mael.) 

xxv.  19,  20.  "  And  these  are  the 
generations  of  Isaac,  Abraham's  son. 
Abraham  begat  Isaac. 

And  Isaac  was  forty  years  old,  &.c." 


Now  this  is  the  arrangement,  and  ordinarily  the  method 
which  pervades  the  whole  book  of  Genesis,  as  the  attentive 
reader  will  readily  perceive.  For  the  thirty-sixth  chapter 
stands  between  the  thirty-fifth  and  thirty-seventh,  just  as  the 
notice  of  Cain,  in  chapter  iv,,  stands  between  the  account  of 
Adam  in  ii.,  iii.,  and  the  introduction  of  Seth  and  his  gene- 
alogy in  chapter  v. ;  and  further  also,  as  chapter  x.  between 
the  history  of  Noah  in  v.  32 — ix.  29,  and  the  genealogy  of 
Shem  in  xi.  10  ss.  ;  and  lastly,  as  Ishmael  is  introduced  be- 
tween Abraham  and  Isaac  in  xxv.  12 — 18. 

Another  remark  in  connexion  with  this  subject  is  worthy 
of  notice.  The  way  and  manner  in  which  the  portion  of 
the  historical  accounts  of  the  patriarchs  which  immediately 
follows  chapter  xxxvi.,  (that  is,  xxxvii.  1,  2,)  is  introduced, 
manifestly  refers  back  to  that  chapter.  In  other  words, 
xxxvii.  1,  "  and  Jacob  dwelt  in  the  land  where  his  father 
was  a  stranger,  in  the  land  of  Canaan,"  and  xxxvi.  8,  "  thus 
dwelt  Esau  in  Mount  Sein,"  are  analogous.  That  Jacob, 
the  heir  of  the  promise,  remained  in  the  land  of  promise. 


CHAP.  XXXVI,]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  329 

while  Esau,  the  collateral  branch  of  the  family,  was  ex- 
cluded, is  here,  as  every  where  else,  the  principal  point. 
Both  xxxvii.  2,  thei-efore,  and  xxxvi.  9,  are  similarly  con- 
nected with  the  verses  immediately  preceding  them. 

The  views  given  in  this  note  are  chiefly  taken  from  the 
work  of  Drechsler  before  mentioned,  p.  157  ss.  Hengs- 
tenberg,  II.  p.  291  ss,,  accords  in  general  with  this  writer. 
I  shall  give  the  reader  a  very  brief  analysis  of  his  re- 
marks. 

'  The  chapter  begins  with  an  account  of  Esau's  family 
during  their  residence  in  Canaan,  and  of  their  wealth  and 
removal,  1 — 8.  It  proceeds  to  give  a  general  view  of  the 
domestic  condition  of  Esau  in  the  country  of  Scir,  9 — 14.- 
This  is  followed  by  the  names  of  the  tribes  of  the  Edomites, 
who,  like  those  of  the  Israelites,  borrowed  their  names  from 
those  of  Esau's  nearest  descendants,  and  each  of  whom  had 
its  head  or  duke,  in  Hebrew  alluph,  as  the  alluph  of  the  tribe 
of  Teman,  &c.  15 — 19.  Afterwards  appears  the  genealogy 
of  Seir  the  Horite,  20 — 30,  Then  we  have  the  Edomilish 
kings,  31 — 39.  And  the  chapter  closes  by  giving  the  resi- 
dences of  the  chiefs  of  the  Edomitish  tribes,  40 — -43.'  This 
general  view  removes  the  chief  difficulties  in  the  chapter. 
The  fourteen  alluphim  who  are  named  (15 — 19)  before  the 
kings,  do  not  form  a  successive  course,  but  are  contempora- 
neous, and,  after  the  kings,  it  is  not  a  new  course  of  phy- 
larchs  that  is  given,  but  the  residences  of  those  before 
named.  (He  thinks  it  improbable  that  feminine  nouns,  such 
as  Timnah,  and  Aholibamah,  should  denote  the  dukes  them- 
selves ;  and  for  this  reason,  and  also  an  account  of  the 
adjuncts,  "  according  to  their  families,  after  their  places," 
conjectures  that  the  names  employed  designate  the  settle- 
ments of  the  personages.  But  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  same  language,  which  in  v.  15 — 19  designates  indi- 
viduals, should  in  40—43  be  used  of  their  local  settlements.) 
42 


330  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  X. 

*  Every  difficulty  vanishes,  when  it  is  considered,  that  the 
royal  power  among  the  Edomites  was  not  raised  on  the 
ruins  of  the  authority  of  the  phylarchs,  (which  would  re- 
quire a  considerable  course  of  time  for  the  continuance  of 
the  latter,  after  the  expiration  of  which  the  course  of  eight 
kings  might  begin,)  but  that  both  existed  contemporane- 
ously, the  Edomites  having  rulers  of  tribes  and  also  kings 
at  the  same  time.' 

'  The  eighth  king  of  the  Edomites  was  evidently  contem- 
poraneous with  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  who  mentions 
the  decease  of  all  the  preceding  kings,  but  is  silent  respect- 
ing his.  The  reason  is  plain  :  he  was  king  when  the  author 
wrote.  In  the  first  book  of  Chronicles,  indeed,  his  death  is 
stated,  ii.  51  ;  but  this  work  was  composed  long  after  his 
time.  The  author  of  Genesis,  with  a  particularity  which 
appears  only  in  this  individual  case,  mentions  the  names  of 
his  wife,  her  parent  and  grand-parent.  What  reason  can  be 
assigned  for  this,  unless  the  author  was  contemporary  with 
the  Edomitish  king  ?  And  the  period  of  his  reign  falls 
within  the  age  of  Moses.' 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that  the  dukes  and 
kings  of  Edom  mentioned  in  this  chapter  may  have  flourished 
before  the  death  of  Moses,  and  consequently  the  notice  here 
contained  may  have  been  written  by  him.  Inasmuch  as  he 
does  speak  of  kings  who  should  rule  over  the  Hebrews, 
(see  Deut.  xvii.  14 — 20,  xxviii.  30,)  it  is  not  impossible  that 
he  may  have  written  even  the  latter  clause  of  v.  31, — "  be- 
fore there  reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of  Israel," 
particularly  as  in  xxxv.  11,  he  recounts  the  promise  of  God 
to  Jacob,  that  "  kings"  should  descend  from  him.  Still  it 
may  have  been  originally  a  marginal  note,  which  in  time 
found  its  way  into  the  text.  Several  commentators  have 
supposed  that  the  last  thirteen  verses  of  the  chapter  cannot 
have  been  the  work  of  the  Hebrew  lawgiver.     The  reader 


CHAP.   XXXVI.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS 


331 


may  find  a  notice  of  the  most  important  writers  on  both 
sides  of  this  question  in  Rosenmiiller's  Scholia,  p.  555 — 558. 
In  V.  2,  the  phraseology,  "  Aholibamah  the  daughter  of 
Anah.  the  daughter  of  Zibeon,"  is  unusual  and  difficult.  It 
is  certain  from  v.  24,  (compare  also  1  Chron.  i.  40.)  that 
Anah  was  a  male,  and  that  he  was  Zibeon's  son  ;  unless,  in- 
deed, it  be  allowed  that  Zibeon  had  a  son  and  daughter 
bearing  the  same  name,  which  is  very  improbable.  From 
V.  25  it  appears  that  this  Anah  was  Aholibamah's  father. 
To  remove  the  supposed  difficulty,  Dathe  and  Rosenmiiller 
would  read  ']'2  for  t^'2^  son  for  daughter,  following  the  Sa- 
maritan text  and  the  Septuagint  and  Syriac  versions.  But 
Michaelis,  who  was  once  of  the  same  opinion,  objects  that 
the  same  mode  of  expression  occurs  in  v.  14,  39 :  to  which 
may  be  added  1  Chron.  i.  50. — Perhaps  this  method  of  re- 
counting was  used  among  the  Idumeans,  and  the  meaning  of 
the  clause  in  v.  2  may  be  this  :  "  Aholibamah  the  daughter 
of  Anah,  (and)  the  daughter,"  that  is,  grand-daughter,  "  of 
Zibeon."— In  v.  25,  the  noun  Anah  is  used  for  the  pronoun 
his,  as  is  usual  in  Hebrew.  See  the  same  idiom  in  xi.  29, 
"  the  father  of  Milcah"  for  '  her  father.' 

Part  XI.     Chap,  xxxvir.  1 — l. 

(142.)  xxxvii.  2.  "  These  are  the  generations,"  or  rather, 
*  this  is  an  account  of  Jacob,'  that  is,  of  his  family  ;  the 
patriarch,  as  head,  standing  for  his  whole  household.  The 
inscription  marks  the  epoch  of  a  new  ancestral  lord,*  as  in 
XXV.  19,  '  this  is  an  account  of  Isaac'  In  the  one  case,  be- 
cause Isaac  was  the  successor  of  Abraham,  and  in  the  other, 
because  Jacob  was  the  son  and  heir  of  Isaac ;  the  deaths  e 
both  having  been  previously  mentioned,  Abraham's  in  xx 

*  Drechsler,  p.  139. 


332  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

10,  and  Isaac's  in  xxxv.  29.  As  the  chapter  inamediately 
following,  (xxxvi.)  relates  to  Esau,  so  the  portion  which 
succeeds  the  notice  of  Abraham's  death,  (xxv.  12—18,)  re- 
lates to  Ishnaael.  The  construction  and  arrangement  of 
both  accounts  are  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  opinion  that 
both  originated  with  the  same  author,  and  unfavorable  to  the 
theory,  that  each  biographical  narrative  is  founded  on  an  in- 
dependent  document. 

As  the  inscription  marks  the  accession  of  a  new  chief,  in 
the  patriarchal  line,  and  follows  the  account  of  the  death  of 
a  predecessor,  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  the  inscription 
in  xxxvii.  2,  purporting  to  be  an  account  of  Jacob,  is  im- 
mediately succeeded  by  a  part  of  the  history  of  Joseph. 

(143.)  In  v.  9,  the  article  before  the  word  "  eleven"  is  not 
sanctioned  by  the  Hebrew.  If  omitted,  the  meaning  will 
be  clearer. — As  Joseph's  own  mother  was  dead,  (compare 
xxxv.  18,  and  xxx.  22 — 24,)  perhaps  Bilhah  may  be  meant, 
or  Leah,  if  she  still  lived.  But  this  supposition  is  by  no 
means  necessary,  as  the  fact  of  Rachel's  death  heightens 
the  absurdity  of  what  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  dream, 

(144.)  The  Ishmaelites  and  Midianites  were  both  des- 
cended from  Abraham,  but  of  different  female  parentage. 
See  xxv.  2,  4,  12—18,  In  this  part  of  the  narrative  they 
appear  to  be  identified,  owing  probably  to  their  intimate  as- 
sociation with  each  other.  See  also  Judg.  vii.  12,  viii.  22, 
24,  26,  where  the  words  seem  to  be  used  promiscuously. 
Rosenmiiller  distinguishes  them  as  genus  and  species,  illus- 
trating by  the  comparison,  taken  from  Aben  Esra,  of  French- 
men and  Lyonnese.  As  the  Ishmaelites  were  the  most  nu- 
merous and  powerful  of  Abraham's  descendants,  (with  the 
exception  of  the  Israelites,)  all  the  others  seem  to  have 
become  merged  in  them,  and  to  have  been  known  by  their 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  333 

name  ;  as,  in  the  present  day,  the  Arabians  boast  of  being 
the  posterity  of  Ishmael. 

(145.)  Some  weighty  chronological  difficulties  arise  from 
the  account  in  this  chapter.  Certain  of  the  events  related 
in  it  must  have  taken  place  before  the  sale  of  Joseph.  For, 
from  this  time  until  Jacob's  descent  into  Egypt,  not  more 
than  twenty-two  years  elapsed,  (see  xxxvii.  2,  xli.  46,  and 
to  the  thirteen  years  thus  obtained,  add  the  seven  of  plenty 
and  two  of  famine  which  had  passed  by,  xlv.  11,)  which  is 
too  short  a  period  for  Judah  to  have  three  sons  by  the  same 
mother,  to  marry  them,  and  by  his  daughter-in-law  to  have 
twins,  one  of  whom,  Pharez,  when  he  went  to  Egypt,  had 
also  two,  xlvi.  12.  On  the  other  hand,  if  Judah's  incest  with 
Tamar  happened  about  the  time  of  Joseph's  sale,  and  the 
story  be  allowed  to  be  properly  placed  here,  this  will  carry 
up  the  circumstance  of  xxxviii.  1,  2,  to  the  time  when  Ja- 
cob was  in  Mesopotamia.  For,  if  we  allow  fourteen  years 
(which  is  little  enough,  and  in  all  probability  too  little,)  for 
Shelah  to  be  grown  up,  (xxxviii.  11,  14,)  and  three  for  the 
births  of  himself  and  two  brothers,  (v.  3 — 5,)  this  will  make 
about  seventeen  between  the  conduct  of  Judah  mentioned 
in  v.  16  ss.,  and  his  associating  with  Shuah,  (v.  2.)  And  as 
Joseph  was  seventeen  when  he  was  sold,  (xxxvii.  2,)  the 
affair  of  xxxviii.  1,  2,  will  be  about  contemporaneous  with 
the  birth  of  Joseph  mentioned  in  xxx.  24  ;  that  is,  fourteen 
years  after  Jacob  had  come  to  Mesopotamia,  supposing  his 
residence  there  to  have  been  only  twenty  years.  Compare 
xxx.  25  ss.,  and  xxxi.  38.  If  now  Jacob  did  not  marry 
Rachel  until  he  had  served  seven  years,  (xxix.  20,  21,)  as 
not  less  than  three  and  a  half  elapsed  between  his  marriage 
and  the  birth  of  his  fourth  son  Judah,  (v.  31 — 35,)  only  the 
same  space  of  time  will  remain  between  his  birth  and 
Joseph's ;  in  other  words,  between  his  birth  and  the  affair 


334  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part    xi. 

with  Shuah  mentioned  in  xxxviii.  1,  2,  which  cannot  possi- 
bly be  correct.  If,  according  to  the  writers  mentioned  in 
note  (112,)  Jacob  married  soon  after  he  went  to  Mesopo- 
tamia, Judah  will  still  be  no  more  than  ten  and  a  half  years 
old  at  the  time  in  view.  This  does  not  remove  the  difficulty, 
while  it  involves  us  in  another  of  an  exegetical  kind.  See 
the  note  just  referred  to.  Dr.  Kcnnicott,  quoted  by  Dr. 
Adam  Clarke,  thinks  that  Jacob  served  and  lived  in  connex- 
ion with  Laban  forty  years,  supposing  the  twenty  years 
mentioned  in  xxxi.  38,  and  that  in  v,  41,  to  be  two  distinct 
periods.*  Perhaps  he  spent  more  time  in  Mesopotamia,  or 
elsewhere  out  of  Canaan,  than  the  brief  history  narrates, 
and  twenty  years  of  the  whole  period  in  Laban's  service  ; 
for  the  twenty  years  mentioned  in  both  these  texts  do  seem 
to  be  identical,  notwithstanding  the  learned  author's  very 
plausible  defence  of  the  contrary  view.  Such  a  supposition 
will  relieve  us  of  the  embarrassment  occasioned  by  the 
chronological  difficulties  equally  well  with  that  maintained 
by  Kennicott,  while  it  allows  us  to  give  what  appears 
to  be  the  most  natural  exposition  of  the  two  verses  just  re- 
ferred to. 

There  is  still  another  view  of  this  subject,  which,  if  ad- 
missible, will  effectually  remove  the  difficulty  already  ex- 
amined. It  supposes,  that  the  design  of  the  author  of  the 
book  of  Genesis  was  not  to  mention  those  of  Jacob's  family 
who  were  living  at  the  time  of  the  descent  into  Egypt,  and 
then  accompanied  him  and  his  sons  thither,  but  rather  to 
state  the  whole  number  of  his  family,  in  order  to  show  how 
abundant  was  the  harvest,  which  in  a  comparatively  short 
time  sprang  up  from  such  a  handful  of  seed.  Compare  Ex. 
i.  5,  7,  Deut.  x.  22.  ,  Several  of  his  grand-children,  there- 

*  See  the  remarks  appended  to  Clarke's  Commentary  on  chapter 
xxxi. 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  335 

fore,  may  have  been  born  some  time  after  the  settlement  in 
Egypt ;  and  of  course  his  great-grand-children  Hezron  and 
Hamul,  mentioned  in  xlvi.  12.  The  sacred  writer  probably 
intended  to  state  the  number  of  Jacob's  descendants  who 
were  living  at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  from  whom  the 
nation  of  the  Israelites  descended.  It  is  remarkable,  that, 
although  in  xlvi.  7,  "  his  daughters  and  his  sons'  daughtere" 
are  spoken  of  as  "  brought  with  him"  into  Egypt,  the  only 
females  mentioned  in  the  subsequent  catalogue  are  his 
daughter  Dinah,  and  Serah  the  daughter  of  Asher.  Can 
it  be  that  all  his  other  grand-daughters  had  died  1  Or,  is  it 
not  more  probable  that  they  had  married  Egyptians,  or  men 
of  some  neighboring  nation,  and  consequently  are  not  to  be 
regarded  in  the  light  of  "  mothers  in  Israel"  1 

The  following  considerations  in  favor  of  the  view  above 
stated  are  alleged  by  Hengstenberg  in  his  reply  to  the  ob- 
jections of  Ilgen,  De  Wette,  Von  Bohlen,  and  Liitzelberger. 
Authentic  des  Pentateuches,  II.  p.  354 — 359. 

1.  At  the  time  of  the  descent  into  Egypt,  Reuben  had  only 
two  sons,  for  if  he  had  more,  he  undoubtedly  would  not  have 
limited  the  offer  made  in  xlii.  37,  to  that  number.  But  in  xlvi. 
9,  four  sons  of  Reuben  are  enumerated,  two  of  whom  must 
consequently  have  been  born  in  Egypt. — But  this  argu- 
ment is  not  conclusive.  Perhaps  the  original  ^5^  '^!3'^~i^!?!5 
will  bear  to  be  rendered  '  the  two  of  my  sons,'  and  thus  the 
father  will  not  specify  the  number  of  his  male  children,  but 
offer  to  the  distracted  patriarch  two  lives  for  one.  Besides, 
it  is  very  easy  to  conjecture  that  only  two  sons  of  Reuben 
were  present  or  at  home  on  the  occasion  referred  to. 

2.  Benjamin  is  so  constantly  represented  as  a  young  man, 
that  it  could  hardly  have  occurred  to  an  Israelite,  that  at 
the  time  of  his  going  to  Egypt  he  was  the  father  of  ten 
sons.     Compare  Gen.  xlih.  8,  xliv.  30 — 33  ;  also  xliii.  29. 

3.  The  author  seems  to  hint,  with  respect  to  Hezron  and 


330  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

Hamul  (v.  12),  that  they  were  substitutes  for  Er  and  Onan, 
and  that  they  were  not  born  in  Canaan.  "  And  Er  and 
Onan  died  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  the  sons  of  Pharez 
were  Hezron  and  Hannul."  Venema  gives  the  same  view 
of  this  passage. — The  argument  seems  to  rest  on  the  sup- 
position, that  on  this  ground  only  can  a  satisfactory  reason 
be  given  for  introducing  the  phrase,  "in  the  land  of  Canaan." 
But  the  connexion  of  this  clause  is  rather  with  the  words 
preceding  than  with  those  which  follow  it,  and  merely  state 
the  fact  that  the  deaths  of  Er  and  Onan  took  place  before 
the  descent. 

4.  Immediately  before  the  genealogy,  it  is  said  in  xlvi.  5 : 
"  and  the  sons  of  Israel  carried  Jacob  their  father  and  their 
little  ones,  &c." ;  and,  according  to  xliii.  8,  the  family  consisted 
of  Jacob,  his  sons  and  their  ^^  little  ones"  But  the  genealogy 
presents  us  with  grand-sons  of  Jacob,  who  themselves  have 
children.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  the  author's  intention  to 
keep  himself  to  the  very  point  of  time  when  the  children  of 
Israel  came  to  Egypt. 

5.  In  Num.  xxvi.,  which  contains  a  census  of  the  Israel- 
ites, not  a  single  grand-son  of  Jacob  is  mentioned,  who  has 
not  been  already  recounted  in  Gen.  xlvi.*  This  is  scarcely 
explicable,  if  all  who  are  mentioned  in  Genesis  were  living 
at  the  time  of  the  descent  into  Egypt.  It  is  quite  unreasona- 
ble to  suppose  that  no  sons  were  born  to  Jacob's  children 
after  their  settlement  in  that  country ;  although  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  probable,  that  several  of  those  who  accom- 
panied their  parents  died  without  offspring. 

6.  In  xxxvii.  1,  the  author  announces  the  "generations" 
or  genealogy  of  Jacob.  His  sons  had  already  been  enu- 
merated in   that   of  Isaac.     It   remained   to   mention    his 

"  J.  lie  leaaer  will  of  course  bear  in  mind,  that  proper  allowances 
must  be  made  for  slight  changes  and  transpositions  of  letters. 


CHAP,  xxxvii.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  337 

grand-sons,  and  perhaps  some  of  his  more  distinguished 
great-grand-sons.  In  giving  this  genealogy,  it  would 
indeed  be  of  little  consequence  to  inform  us  where  the 
grand-children  Were  born,  but  highly  important,  indeed,  not 
to  omit  any  in  the  enumeration.  Otherwise  it  were  rea- 
sonable to  expect  a  second  genealogical  view,  relative  to 
the  increase  of  the  patriarchal  family  in  Egypt.  But  such 
statistical  information  is  not  to  be  found. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  evident  that  it  cannot  have 
been  the  design  of  the  author  merely  to  mention  those  per- 
sons who  were  already  born  at  the  time  of  the  descent  into 
Egypt.  "  The  list  comprehends  all  the  males  of  .Jacob's 
family,  whether  born  in  Mesopotamia  or  in  Canaan  or  in 
Egypt."     Hartmann. 

But  the  result  thus  attained  appears  to  be  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  the  express  declaration  of  the  sacred  author  him- 
self. He  tells  us  in  xlvi.  26,  that  "  all  the  souls  that  came 
with  Jacob  into  Egypt,  which  came  out  of  his  loins,  besides 
Jacob's  sons'  wives,  all  the  souls  were  three  score  and  six." 
This  difficulty  is  increased  by  the  next  verse,  which  speci- 
fies Joseph  and  his  sons  as  already  in  Egypt,  seemingly  in 
contradistinction  to  those  who  came  there  in  company  with 
Jacob. 

In  reply  to  this  very  plausible  objection,  it  may  be  said, 
that  the  author  considers  those  who  were  born  in  Egypt  as 
having  come  there  with  Jacob  in  their  fathers.  This  posi- 
tion is  maintained  on  the  following  grounds : 

1.  It  is  said  in  v.  27 :  "all  the  souls  of  the  house  of  Ja- 
cob which  came  into  Egypt  were  three  score  and  ten."  As 
in  this  enumeration  the  sons  of  Joseph  are  comprehended  in 
the  general  number  of  those  who  came  to  Egypt,  although 
they  were  born  in  that  country,  and  consequently  had  come 
there  in  the  person  of  their  father;  so  also  may  other  grand- 
sons of  Jacob  be  enumerated  as  a  part  of  the  aggregate 
43 


338  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

who  are  said  to  have  come  with  him  to  Egypt,  although  they 
came  thither  in  their  fathers  respectively.  This  conclusion 
is  irresistible. 

2.  The  phraseology  in  v.  15  is  worthy  of  notice.  ^^  These 
(the  whole  number  named  in  the  preceding  verses,)  are  the 
sons  of  Leah,  which  she  bore  unto  Jacob  in  Padan  Aram, 
with  his  daughter  Dinah  ;  all  the  souls  of  his  sons  and  his 
daughters  were  thirty  and  three"  Here,  and  in  v.  8,  the  word 
"  sons"  may  be  taken  in  a  limited  or  more  extended  mean- 
ing. In  either  case  the  sons  appear  as  appertaining  to  the 
fathers,  and  born  along  with  them.  The  same  remark  ap- 
plies to  V.  18  :  "these  are  the  sons  of  Zilpah,  whom  Laban 
gave  to  Leah  his  daughter,  and  these  she  bare  unto  Jacob, 
sixteen  souls."     Compare  also  v.  25,  which  is  similar. 

3.  In  Deut.  x.  22,  it  is  said :  "  thy  fathers  went  down  into 
Egypt  in  (not  with)  three  score  and  ten  persons,"  compre- 
hending Joseph's  sons  as  having  gone  down  in  their  father. 
Compare  the  language  "  I  will  surely  bring  thee  up  again" 
in  xlvi.  4,  which  refers  to  Jacob's  posterity. 

Some  of  these  considerations  must  be  allowed  to  have 
great  weight,  and  perhaps  the  theory  which  they  are  in- 
tended to  maintain  most  satisfactorily  removes  the  chrono- 
logical difficulty  before  stated.  These  various  solutions  are 
submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader. 

(146.)  It  appears  from  the  eighth  verse,  that  the  law  in 
Deut.  XXV.  5  ss.,  obliging  a  man  to  marry  his  brother's 
childless  widow,  with  the  view  of  raising  a  family  for  his 
brother,  did  not  originate  with  Moses,  but  was  in  use  in  the 
patriarchal  age.  Indeed,  this  remark  applies  to  some  other 
particulars  of  the  Mosaic  system.  An  Essay  on  this  sub- 
ject by  Reimar,  published  in  the  Commentationes  Theolo- 
gicse,  has  been  referred  to  in  note  (42.) 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  339 

(147.)  The  middle  clause  of  the  sixth  verse  may  mean, 
that,  having  abandoned  all  his  domestic  affairs  to  Joseph, 
Potiphar  was  solicitous  about  nothing  but  to  get  his  food  in 
proper  season :  Or,  as  the  food  of  the  Egyptians,  or  the 
manner  of  preparing  and  using  it,  differed  in  some  respects 
from  that  of  the  Hebrews,  (compare  xliii.  32,)  that  Joseph 
was  not  allowed  to  have  any  concern  with  his  master's 
table. 

(148.)  It  has  been  supposed,  that  a  comparison  of  Gen. 
xxxvii.,  xxxix.  and  xl.,  exhibits  a  difficulty  which  cannot  be 
removed.  In  xxxvii.  36,  and  xxxix.  1,  Potiphar  is  called- 
"  the  captain  of  the  guard,"  meaning  of  the  king's  body 
guard.  Joseph  is  sold  to  this  person,'calumniated  by  his 
wife,  and  consequently  imprisoned  by  him.  He  becomes  a 
favorite  with  the  keej^er  of  the  prison,  who  commits  to  him 
the  important  trust  of  the  otherprisoners,  xxxix.  21 — 23.  But 
in  xl.  4,  "  the  captain  of  the  guard"  is  said  to  charge  Joseph 
with  the  care  of  the  chief  butler  and  the  chief  baker.  The 
question  has  been  raised,  had  Pharaoh  two  captains  of  his 
body  guard  1  and  is  one  of  them  identical  with  the  keeper 
of  the  prison?  The  answer  is  easy.  The  captain  of  the 
body  guard  was  commander,  in  modern  phrase,  lieutenant, 
of  the  prison,  as  is  very  plain  from  xl.  3 ;  and  probably  the 
house  in  which  Joseph  was  confined  was  an  appendage  to 
his  residence.  Thus,  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  "the  house  of 
Jonathan  the  scribe"  was  employed  as  a  prison.  Jer.  xxxvii. 
15.  Still,  the  state  prison  of  which  Potiphar  was  the  com- 
mander, had  a  special  inspector,  subject  to  the  higher  au- 
thority of  the  commander,  and  this  is  the  person  who  is 
called  the  "  keeper  of  the  prison"  If  now  Joseph  made 
himself  agreeable  and  necessary  to  this  officer,  who  is  never 
called  his  master,  it  would  be  very  natural  that  he  should 
make  the  useful  Hebrew  sub-inspector  of  the  prison.     Both 


340  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XU 

before  and  after  the  confinement  of  the  chief  butler  and  chief 
baker,  he  continues  under  the  higher  authority,  the  captain 
of  the  guard,  and  is  still  his  servant,  xli.  12.  That  Potiphar 
should  entrust  these  two  officers  to  the  care  of  Joseph 
involves  no  difficulty  ;  for  doubtless  the  keeper  of  the  prison 
had  informed  him  of  Joseph's  fidelity ;  and  very  probably 
he  distrusted  the  correctness  of  his  wife's  report.  This  is 
quite  reconcileable  with  the  opinion,  that  prudential  con- 
siderations prevented  him  from  avowing  his  servant's  inno- 
cence by  releasing  him  from  prison. 

(149.)  The  expression  in  the  fifth  verse,  "  each  man  ac- 
cording to  the  interpretation  of  his  dream,"  intimates,  that 
the  dream  of  each  had  a  different  exposition.  Dathe  gives 
the  meaning :  "  diversee  sententiae  somnia."  The  noun  is 
used  for  the  pronoun  :  '  each  one's  dream  had  its  own  pe- 
cuhar  interpretation.' 

(150.)  In  v.  13,  the  words  ^t;p5^Vh!^  J>^b^.  are  rendered 
in  our  translation, "  shall  lift  up  thy  head."  The  same  phrase 
is  employed  in  Exod.  xxx.  12,  and  Num.  i.  49,  in  the  sense 
of  numbering,  and  this  sense  agrees  well  with  the  use  of  the 
phrase  in  v.  20 :  "  he  lifted  up  the  head  of  the  chief  butler 
and  of  the  chief  baker  in  the  midst  of  his  servants."  It 
might  then  be  translated  literally,  '  shall  take  thy  poll ;'  that 
is,  in  recounting  his  officers,  Pharaoh  shall  number  thee,  and. 
as  it  follows,  shall  restore  thee  to  thy  station.  The  addition  of 
^"^^^12  to  the  same  phrase  in  v.  19,  gives  a  different  mean- 
ing :  *  shall  raise  thy  head  from  thee,'  that  is,  shall  put  thee 
to  death.  Whether  this  were  done  by  decapitation,  or  by 
some  other  mode  of  execution,  the  phrase  itself  does  not 
determine.  In  the  case  before  us,  suspension,  in  some  form 
or  other,  was  the  mode  adopted.     See  v.  22. 


CHAP.  XXXVII,  1—L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  341 

Gesenius,  in  his  Lexicon,  under  5J<t2J5  I.  (b)  (7),  considers 
the  phrase,  'to  lift  up  the  liead,'  in  this  chapter,  as  elHplical, 
for  the  full  expression  *  to  lift  up  the  head  out  of  prison  ;' 
such  places  of  confinement  being  usually  under  ground. 
He  refers  to  2  Kings  xxv.  27,  where  the  words  occur  in  re- 
ference to  the  king  of  Babylon  and  his  captive,  the  king  of 
Judah,  whom  he  released  from  a  long  imprisonment.  Here 
the  idea  of  taking  the  poll  would  seem  to  be  inadmissible. 
It  is  most  probable,  therefore,  that  the  language  in  2  Kings 
denotes  removal  from  prison,  and  restoration  to  liberty. 
And  Gesenius  may  have  seized  upon  the  fundamental  thought 
implied  in  the  phrase,  namely,  *to  remove  from  prison,'  the 
result  of  such  removal,  whether  happy  or  distressful,  being 
expressed  by  the  subsequent  language. 

"  The  land  of  the  Hebrews"  in  v.  15,  has  been  supposed 
to  be  an  interpolation,  but  without  sufficient  reason.  The 
country  about  Hebron  may  have  been  so  designated  even  in 
Joseph's  time  ;  and  the  term  "  Hebrews"  applied  to  all  who 
were  connected  with  Jacob's  family.  Abraham,  the  He- 
brew, had  visited  Egypt,  and  probably  left  there  a  distinct 
impression  of  his  patronymic  name  as  well  as  of  his  character, 
and  it  would  doubtless  be  continued  by  means  of  caravans  and 
trading  companies.  The  appellation  appears  to  have  been 
current,  and  to  have  needed  no  interpretation.  See  xxxix. 
14,  17,  xli.  12.  The  Hebrews  were  probably  regarded  by 
the  Egyptians  as  settlers  in  Canaan,  part  of  which  would  be 
called  by  their  name,  as  other  parts  were  known  as  the 
lands  of  Jebusites,  Perizzites,  Hittites,  &c. 

(151.)  Some  have  supposed  the  word  "ijl^i^  in  v.  43,  to 
be  Hebrew,  and  derived  it  from  TjllS  with  the  preformative 
fi<  for  n,  meaning  "  bow  the  knee."  But  most  probably  it 
is  Egyptian.     Various  significations  have  been  assigned  to 


342  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

it,  according  to  the  supposed  origin  and  composition  of  the 
word.  Foster  compares  it  with  haprechek,  meaning  '  clothed 
by  the  king,'  and  thinks  it  refers  to  the  vesture  and  orna- 
ments just  mentioned,  and  that  Joseph's  favor  with  the  mon- 
arch was  to  be  announced  to  the  people  by  a  public  exhibi- 
tion and  proclamation,  as  in  the  case  of  Mordecai.  See 
Esther  vi.  11. — The  signification  most  generally  received, 
however,  is  that  of  La  Croze.  He  derives  the  word  from 
oube  rech,  meaning,  '  bend  down,'  '  do  reverence  before.' 
Thus  the  same  idea  is  supported  both  by  the  Egyptian  and 
Hebrew  usage.  See  Jablonskii  Opuscula,  (edit.  Te  Water,) 
Tom.  I.  p.  4—8. 

(152.)  n5?'S  il5512.  The  former  of  these  words  is  de- 
rived by  some  from  "IS^  to  hide.  The  Hebrew  affords  no 
analogy  that  can  be  relied  on  with  the  latter.  Yet  the 
meaning  of  both  has  been  supposed  to  be,  '  revealer  of 
secrets  ;'  and  this  is  given  by  several  ancient  Jewish  au- 
thorities.— The  terms  are  no  doubt  Egyptian,  with  which 
the  Septuagint  ■^ov^oix.^avri-)^  nearly  corresponds,  and  signify, 
*  saviour  of  the  age'  or  'world.'  Dr.  L.  Loewe,  in  a  Disser- 
tation on  "  the  Origin  of  the  Egyptian  Language,  proved  by 
the  Analysis  of  that  and  the  Hebrew,"  gives  "  a  very  dif- 
ferent meaning,"  which  he  "  fearlessly  asserts  it  had  in 
the  mind  of  Pharaoh,"  namely,  "  Son  of  the  God  of  life." 
But  this  result  is  founded  on  so  many  assumptions  and  fan- 
ciful analogies,  that  it  is  not  likely  to  be  admitted  by  judi- 
cious commentators.  Jablonski,  who  coincides  in  the  mean- 
ing above  given,  has  examined  the  subject  at  length,  ubi 
sup.  p.  207 — 216.  Those  who  have  not  access  to  this 
learned  writer,  may  consult  Rosenmiiller's  notes,  and  Gese- 
jiius  on  the  word. 

(153.)  In  the  several  notices  which  occur  in  the  narrative 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  343 

respecting  the  bundles  of  money  found  in  the  sacks,  there 
appears  to  be  a  palpable  discrepancy.  In  the  first  account 
of  this  circumstance,  (xHi.  27,)  on  of  the  brothers  is  said  to 
have  discovered  his  money  on  opening  "  his  sack  to  give 
his  ass  provender  at  the  inn ;"  and  afterwards,  (v.  35,)  on 
their  return  home  it  was  found  that  "  every  man's  bundle  of 
money"  had  been  secured  to  him  in  the  same  manner. 
Hence  it  would  seem  evident,  that  this  discovery  was  not 
made  until  they  arrived  at  their  father's  house.  Whereas, 
from  what  is  subsequently  stated  by  the  brothers  to  Joseph's 
steward,  (xliii.  21,)  it  appears  no  less  evident,  that  it  was 
made  at  the  inn,  where,  as  it  was  before  said,  one  of  them 
found  his  money  in  his  sack's  mouth. — It  is  possible,  that 
the  agitation  of  mind  under  which  the  communication  was 
made  to  the  steward,  (see  particularly  v.  18,)  may  have  led 
the  speaker  into  a  slight  mistake,  inducing  him  to  say,  that 
that  took  place  at  the  inn  which  happened  partly  there  and 
partly  at  home.  Or  it  may  be,  that  several  opened  their 
sacks  at  the  inn,  although  one  only  is  said  to  have  done  so 
in  xlii.  27,  and  thus  what  occurred  to  several  in  that  place, 
and  to  the  rest  of  them  at  home,  is  represented  to  the  stew- 
ard in  general  terms  as  happening  at  the  inn,  the  mere  cir- 
cumstance of  place  being  regarded  as  indifferent.  To  sup- 
pose a  contradiction  of  this  kind  in  the  author,  would  be 
irreconcilable  with  his  character  as  an  intelligent  and  care- 
ful historian,  (which  the  whole  tenor  of  his  book  proves,) 
independently  of  his  inspiration. 

(154.)  In  V.  32,  it  is  said:  to  "eat  with  the  Hebrews  is 
an  abomination  unto  the  Egyptians."  Herodotus  tells  us, 
that  the  Egyptians  would  not  associate  much  with  the 
Greeks,  nor  use  any  of  their  culinary  utensils.  See  II.  41  ; 
in  Beloe's  Translation,  Vol.  I.  p.  328,  Philadelphia  edition, 
1814.     It  is  not  likely  that  the  Greeks  were  exclusively  the 


344  NOTEd    TO    GENESIS.  [i^art  xi. 

objects  of  their  aversion  ;  most  probably  it  e:s:tended  to 
foreigners  in  general.  Thus  it  affords  one  reason  for  the 
statement  of  abhorrence  so  strongly  represented  in  the  text. 
Besides,  the  cattle  that  were  slaughtered  and  eaten  by  the 
Hebrews,  were,  in  some  of  the  nomes  of  Egypt,  regarded 
as  objects  of  worship. — It  is  also  afterwards  said,  that  "every 
shepherd  is  an  abomination  unto  the  Egyptians."  xlvi.  34^ 
It  is  evident  that  this  cannot  be  understood  of  shepherds 
universally,  for  the  king  had  his  own  flocks  and  shepherds, 
as  is  plain  from  xlvii.  6.  Compare  also  Exod.  ix.  3,  4,  6, 
19 — 21.  These  texts  prove  that  the  occupation  was  not 
unusual  among  the  Egyptians.  (See  also  Wilkinson's  Man- 
ners and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  Vol.  I.  p.  239, 
chap.  iii.  and  II.  p.  15,  chap,  iv.,  where  the  Egyptian  "pas- 
tors" are  mentioned  as  belonging  to  the  fourth  caste,  and  are 
"  subdivided  into  oxherds,  shepherds,  goatherds,  and  swine- 
herds.") It  has  been  said,  that  they  kept  flocks  simply  for 
the  milk,  skin,  and  wool,  and  abstained  entirely  from  the  use 
of  them  for  food.  Grotius,  on  xlvi.  34,  gives  as  a  reason 
for  the  declaration  there  made,  "that  the  shepherds  deprived 
the  cattle  of  life  and  used  the  flesh  for  food  ;"  and  says  that 
"  the  Egyptians  kept  flocks  for  the  sake  of  the  wool  and 
milk."  Quia  pastores  pecori  vitam  adimebant,  et  carne 
vescebantur. — Pecora  iEgyplii  habebant,  sed  lana3  et  lactis 
causa."  Aben  Ezra  also  tells  us  that  "  the  Egyptians  did 
not  then  eat  flesh,"  '^bDli^  d^n^S^Sfl  TH  &<b  DHH  tD^^^l 
*lO!n,  and  he  compares  them  with  the  natives  of  India,  who 
abstain,  he  says,  both  from  flesh  and  milk.  But  that  the 
Egyptians  did  avoid  the  use  of  flesh  is  not  susceptible  of 
proof,  as  Bryant  has  abundantly  shown  in  his  Analysis  of 
Ancient  Mythology  ;  although  some  of  his  quotations  from 
Herodotus  are  of  doubtful  application.  See  Vol.  VI.  p. 
168 — 176,  8vo.  London,  1807.  In  some  nomes  they  used 
as  articles  of  food  what  were  objects  of  worship  in  others. 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  345 

See  Heeren's  Ideen  iiber  die  Politik,  &c.  translated  into 
Englisii,  and  published  under  the  title  of  "  Historical  Re- 
searches into  the  Politics,  Intercourse,  and  Trade  of  the 
Carthaginians,  Ethiopians,  and  Egyptians,  Vol.  II.  p.  183, 
Oxford  edition.  That  the  ancient  Egyptians  used  flesh  very 
freely,  particularly  beef  and  goose,  appears  from  the  sculp- 
tures which  still  remain.  See  Wilkinson,  Vol.  II.  p.  367  ss., 
chap.  vii.  It  is  also  plainly  alluded  to  in  Ex.  xvi,  3,  where 
the  murmuring  Hebrews  long  for  "  the  flesh-pots"  at  which 
they  were  in  the  habit  of  enjoying  themselves  when  in 
Egypt.  Still,  the  indiscriminate  use  of  the  flesh  of  cattle  for 
food  by  the  Hebrews  and  foreign  shepherds,  may  afford 
another  reason  why  both  were  regarded  by  the  Egyptians 
with  abhorrence. 

A  further  reason  has  been  assigned  why  shepherds,  and 
consequently  Hebrews,  who,  in  common  with  their  ances- 
tors, led  a  pastoral  life,  were  held  in  detestation  by  the 
Egyptians.  It  is  said  that  they  had  suffered  much  and  long 
from  the  invasion  of  the  shepherd  race,  who  had  usurped 
the  government  and  exercised  a  foreign  sway  over  the  na- 
tion, so  that  the  very  name  and  occupation  were  abomina- 
ble to  them.  Shuckford,  indeed,  in  his  Sacred  and  Pro- 
fane History  Connected,  Book  VII.  Vol.  II.  p.  205—210, 
places  the  invasion  of  these  foreigners  considerably  after  this 
period,  and  supposes  the  king  who  arose  after  Joseph's 
death,  and  disregarded  the  services  which  he  had  rendered 
the  nation,  to  have  been  the  first  of  this  new  dynasty.  But 
this  hypothesis,  like  some  others  of  the  same  author,  is  un- 
founded. The  best  supported  theories,  and  those  which  are 
most  generally  received,  allow  a  much  earlier  date  to  this 
invasion.  Hales,  in  his  new  Analysis  of  Chronology,  Vol. 
II.  p.  157,  places  it  six  years  before  the  birth  of  Abraham  ; 
Usher,  eighty-eight.  See  his  Chronologia  Sacra,  anno 
mundi  1920  and  2008.  Bryant  also  assigns  to  it  a  period 
44 


«I 


146  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

anterior  to  the  time  of  that  patriarch,  Vol.  VI.  p.  153,  He 
enters  largely  into  the  history  of  this  shepherd  race,  ex- 
hibits all  that  is  said  of  them  by  Manetho,  Josephus,  and 
others ;  distinguishes  them  from  the  Hebrews,  whose  settle- 
ment he  thinks  was  subsequent  to  their  expulsion ;  and  de- 
tails many  interesting  particulars,  mingled,  however,  with 
not  a  little  that  is  fanciful  and  groundless.  See  Vol.  IV.  p. 
301  ss.,  and  VI.  p.  1 — 187.  Wilkinson  is  also  of  opinion, 
that  "  the  hatred  borne  against  shepherds  by  the  Egyptians 
was  not  owing  solely  to  their  contempt  for  that  occupation. 
This  feeling,"  says  he,  "  originated  in  another  and  a  far 
more  powerful  cause, — the  previous  occupation  of  their 
country  by  a  pastor  race,  who  had  committed  great  cruelties 
during  their  possession  of  the  country  ;  and  the  already  ex- 
isting prejudice  against  shepherds  when  the  Hebrews  ar- 
rived, plainly  shows  their  invasion  to  have  happened  pre- 
vious to  that  event."  Vol.  II.  p.  16,  chap.  iv.  If,  now,  these 
shepherd  invaders  had  been  driven  out  from  Egypt  a  short 
time  before  the  age  of  Joseph,  no  wonder  that  shepherds 
should  have  been  detested  by  the  natives.  This  supposition 
is  in  harmony  with  the  incidents  mentioned  in  the  narrative ; 
it  adds  point  to  the  affected  suspicion  of  Joseph,  that  his 
brothers  were  spies,  and  shows  that  Pharaoh's  allowing  them 
to  occupy  the  land  of  Goshen  was  politic,  as  the  Hebrews, 
placed  on  the  Arabian  frontier,  became  a  sort  of  barrier,  to 
prevent  the  invasion  of  any  foreign  aggressors  from  the 
east. 

Many  writers,  however,  identify  the  shepherds  with  the 
Israelites,  considering  the  narrative  of  Manetho,  from  whom 
chiefly  the  account  of  this  race  is  drawn,  as  too  confused 
and  uncertain  to  be  relied  on  with  confidence.  See  Buddeeus, 
Hist.  Ecc.  V.  T.  Period.  I.  sect.  iii.  §  24,  Tom.  I.  p.  451  ss. ; 
Witsius,  ^Egyptiaca,  Lib.  III.  p.  208 — 216 ;  Vitringa  in  Isa. 
cap.  xix.  Notitia  ^Egypti,  xxxi.  xxxii.   Tom.  I.  p.  549,  550 ; 


CHXP.   XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  347 

and   Perizonius,  iEgyptiaram  Originum  et  Temporum  Anti- 
quissimorum  Investigatio,  cap.  xix.  p.  328 — 352. 

The  learned;  acute,  and  careful  German  author,  Heeren, 
considers  the  whole  account  of  the  shepherd  race,  the  hyksos 
of  Manetho,  as  referring  to  the  repeated  invasions  and  at- 
tacks to  which  lower  Egypt  was  subjected  from  the  east, 
and  particularly  by  Arabians,  in  proportion  as  it  became 
more  cultivated  and  settled  by  immigration  from  the  south, 
and  comprehending  the  settlement  of  these  foreigners,  who 
were  finally  expelled  by  the  combined  efforts  of  several 
contemporaneous  Egyptian  kings.  Historical  Researches, 
&;c.  Vol.  II.  chap.  ii.  p.  115  ss.  He  acquiesces  in  the  view 
of  Manetho,  who  "  places  the  elevation  of  Joseph  within 
this  period,"  remarking  that  "  the  favorable  reception  of  his 
family,  leading  a  shepherd  life,  will  be  certainly  most  ex- 
plicable during  the  sway  of  a  shepherd  dynasty."  p.  117. 
See  also  p.  119.  On  the  Egyptian  aversion  to  shepherds  he 
makes  the  following  remarks :  "  The  extensive  table  lands 
which  the  nomad  herdsman  inhabited,  were  seldom  [entirely] 
subject  to  the  Pharaohs,  probably  never ;  and  the  dominion 
over  nomad  hordes,  from  their  very  nature,  must  at  all  times 
be  very  uncertain  and  variable.  From  their  whole  manner 
of  life,  they  can  scai'cely  be  considered  otherwise  than  as 
natural  enemies,  which  must  be  borne  with,  because  they 
cannot  be  got  rid  of.  To  this,  therefore,  we  may  attribute 
the  hate  and  scorn  in  which  they  were  at  all  times  held,  and 
which  the  ruling  priest  caste  carefully  strove  to  nourish. 
"  The  neatherds  are  to  the  Egyptians  an  abomination,"  was 
said  in  the  Mosaic  period,  and  traces  of  the  contempt  with 
which  they  were  regarded  are  found  in  Herodotus,  ii.  128. 
There  is  no  proof,  however,  that  this  disgrace  attached  to 
those  cultivators,  who,  being  proprietors  of  land,  made  the 
tending  and  breeding  of  cattle  their  business.  Black  cattle 
were  by  no  means  unclean  in  Egypt ;  the  cow  was  sacred 


-Vv 


348  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

to  Isis,  and  oxen  generally  served  for  food  and  sacrifice  ;  it 
is  not  therefore  likely  that  the  naanagement  of  them  should 
have  caused  defilement.  It  was  not  so  much  the  keeping  of 
cattle,  which,  in  fact,  was  equally  indispensable  with  agri- 
culture, as  the  nomad  life,  which  was  directly  opposed  to 
the  views  and  policy  of  the  ruling  caste. 

Besides,  to  this  caste  [of  shepherds]  seem  to  have  be- 
longed the  tribes  which  had  taken  up  their  abode  in  the 
marshy  plains  of  the  Delta.  According  to  Strabo,  (p.  1142,) 
these  were  especially  assigned  by  the  ancient  Pharaohs  for 
the  abode  of  the  neatherds.  The  tribes  which  dwelt  there 
had,  nevertheless,  as  we  are  told  by  Herodotus,  (ii.  92,) 
adopted  Egyptian  manners ;  but  they  still  remained  half 
barbarians,  and  even  robbers,  for  the  thickets  of  reeds  not 
only  supplied  them  with  the  materials  for  their  huts,  but 
likewise  protected  them  from  the  approach  of  strangers. 
Diod.  i.  52.  Heliodorus  draws  a  similar  picture  of  them. 
iEthiop.  i.  5."  p.  148,  149. 

The  theory  favored  by  Heeren  is  maintained  also  by  Dr. 
J.  M.  JosT,  in  his  general  history  of  the  Israelites,  Allge- 
meine  Geschichte  des  Israelitischen  Volks,  Berlin,  1832.  In 
Vol.  I.  p.  67,  74,  he  advances  it  incidentally,  but  afterwards, 
p.  94 — 97,  he  defends  it  at  length.  As  his  argument  com- 
prehends probably  all  that  can  be  urged  with  any  weight  in 
favor  of  this  view,  it  may  be  well  to  give  the  reader  an 
abstract  of  it. 

Jost  places  the  exode  about  the  middle  or  latter  half  of 
the  fifteenth  century  before  the  Christian  era,  in  the  time  of 
the  fifth  Ramesses.  The  fourth  of  this  name,  Ramesses 
Meiamum,  died  in  the  year  A.  C.  1493,  after  a  reign  of 
sixty-six  years.  About  one  hundred  and  fifty  or  two  hun- 
dred years  before,  the  dynasty  of  these  kings  had  put  an 
end  to  the  authority  of  the  shepherds,  which  had  lasted  tWD 
hundred  and  sixty  years.     Coming  immediately  after  that  of 


CHAP,  xxxvii.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  349 

the  shepherds,  it  must  have  been  unfriendly  to  the  Israelites, 
to  whom  that  race  was  favorable,  as  it  was  altogether  na- 
tural to  expect  that  they  would  be.  The  shepherds  were 
Shemites,  descendants  probably  of  Eber,  and  allied  to  the 
Israelites  in  spirit,  language,  and  occupation ;  which  very 
circumstances  would  make  them  hateful  to  the  Egyptians. 
This  agrees  with  the  apprehension  of  Pharaoh,  that  the 
Hebrews,  who  had  become  exceedingly  numerous,  might 
avail  themselves  of  the  occasion  of  a  war  to  leave  the 
country  and  increase  the  number  of  hostile  neighbors.  Ex. 
i.  10.  Hence  it  is  plain  that  the  Israelites  were  able  at  that 
time  to  draw  together  a  considerable  army  to  act  against 
the  ruling  dynasty.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  several  gene- 
rations, certainly  more  than  two  hundred  years,  must  have 
passed  away  since  Jacob  and  his  family  settled  in  Egypt.* 
Hence  it  appears  also,  as  the  shepherd  dynasty  lasted  only 
two  hundred  and  sixty  years,  that  their  settlement  must  have 
taken  place  not  long  after  the  commencement  of  that 
dynasty. 

This  conclusion  is  corroborated  by  the  simple  narrative 
of  Joseph,  which  presumes  the  reader  to  be  acquainted 
with  Egyptian  history.  In  the  first  place  the  term  Hebrews 
is  applied,  without  immediate  reference  to  Israel,  whose 
family  was  small,  to  the  whole  body  of  the  shepherd  people,f 
who  as  such  were  hated  by  the  Egyptians.  This  agrees 
with  the  opinion  that  they  had  conquered  the  country,  and 
that  the  ruling  monarchs  were  selected  from  their  number 
and  forced  upon  the  people,  by  whom  they  were  held  in 
detestation,  although  they  did  accommodate  themselves  to 
the  Egyptian  laws  and  usages. 

*  Jost  adheres  to  the  chronology  which  is  supported  by  the  Hebrew 
text,  and  maintains  that  the  Israelites  resided  in  Egypt  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years.     See  Exod.  xii.  40. 

f  Gen.  xxxix.  14,  xl.  15,  xli.  12,  xliii.  31,  Ex.  i.  16,  iii.  18,  and  viii. 


350  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  xi. 

Secondly,  it  was  only  under  such  a  foreigner,  and  in  such 
circumstances,  that  Joseph  could  have  been  raised  to  dis- 
tinction. Hence  the  cup-bearer  mentioned  him  as  a  Hebrew 
youth,  able  to  interpret  dreams  ;  and  hence  the  king,  of  the 
same  stock  originally,  determined  to  send  for  him,  as  the 
Egyptian  wise  men  gave  him  no  satisfaction.  The  advice 
of  Joseph  was  gladly  taken,  because  the  king  perceived  im- 
mediately that  the  establishment  and  independence  of  his 
people  would  be  promoted  by  it.  To  have  a  Hebrew  in  his 
service  as  administrator  of  the  kingdom  would  be  agreeable 
to  his  dependents  ;  and  his  foes,  the  priests,  were  soothed  by 
freeing  them  from  civil  burthens,  and  securing  their  incomes. 
And,  although  he  conferred  the  right  of  citizenship  on  Joseph, 
giving  him  an  Egyptian  name  and  marrying  him  to  the 
daughter  of  the  priest  of  the  sun,  yet  he  did  not  venture  to 
violate  the  feelings  of  the  people,  and  Joseph  did  not  sit  at 
the  same  table  with  the  Egyptian  lords,  because  they  would 
not  eat  with  the  shepherd  race.     Gen.  xliii.  21. 

Thirdly,  when  Joseph's  brothers  came  to  Egypt,  they  un- 
doubtedly recognized  him  as  the  Hebrew,  for  his  story  must 
have  been  generally  known  ;  but  it  never  occurred  to  them 
that  he  was  their  brother,  whom  they  had  sold,  as  there 
were  certainly  many  Hebrews  in  the  land,  and  some  of  them 
men  of  distinction.  He  confirmed  their  error  by  employ- 
ing an  interpreter.  And  it  is  only  on  the  supposition  here 
maintained,  that  he  could  affect  to  regard  his  ten  brothers 
as  spies ;  for,  while  the  shepherd  race  held  the  power,  it  is 
very  conceivable  that  their  jealousy  might  be  excited  by  the 
apprehension  of  further  inroads  by  others  of  the  same  stock. 
Such  a  feigned  charge  preferred  by.  a  governor  acting  under 
the  authority  of  the  genuine  Egyptian  family,  would  be 
altogether  inexplicable. 

Lastly,  Pharaoh  was  pleased  with  the  account  of  Joseph's 
family.     Did  he  know  that  they  were  shepherds  1  And  were 


•  <• 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1—L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  351 

he  an  Egyptian,  would  he  have  allowed  such  men,  hateful 
to  his  people,  to  settle  in  Egypt  1  But  if  he  were  himself 
of  the  same  stock,  his  own  satisfaction  and  that  of  his  cour- 
tiers is  what  might  be  expected  from  the  characteristic  hos- 
pitality of  the  race.  Thus  the  Israelites  were  connected 
with  the  government,  but  hated  by  the  Egyptian  people. 
The  remains  of  Jacob  are  embalmed,  and,  agreeably  to  his 
last  will,  committed  to  his  own  sepulchre,  accompanied  by 
many  Egyptian  lords,  solemnities  which  it  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  the  enemies  of  the  shepherd  race  would  have 
allowed.  The  place  in  Canaan  where  the  mourning  cere- 
monies of  the  funeral  were  performed,  was  called  by  the  in- 
habitants, Abel  Misraim,  (mourning  of  the  Egyptians,)  be- 
cause they  were  all  conducted  according  to  the  Egyptian 
manner. 

There  is  certainly  weight  in  some  of  the  suggestions  here 
advanced.  And  yet  they  are  not  of  sufficient  force  to  re- 
move all  doubt  from  an  inquirer's  mind.  The  first  argument 
assumes  the  general  application  of  the  term  Hebrews  to  the 
whole  body  of  the  shepherd  people.  The  truth  of  this  can- 
not perhaps  be  denied,  but  the  evidence  of  it  is  plainly  un- 
satisfactory. The  last  of  the  author's  references  is  probably 
a  typographical  error,  as  it  has  no  bearing  on  the  point. 
The  others,  although  they  harmonize  with  his  view,  are 
evidently  inadequate  to  prove  it.  Indeed  there  is  only  one, 
(Gen.  xliii.  31,)  which,  as  proof,  carries  with  it  even  plausi- 
bility. Still,  the  term  Hebrew  may  have  been  applied  to 
other  races  descended  from  the  patriarch  Eber,  beside  that 
of  Jacob. 

The  second  argument  seems  also  to  be  inconclusive. 
Undoubtedly  "  Joseph  could  have  been  raised  to  distinction 
under  such  a  foreigner  and  in  such  circumstances  ;"  but 
wherein  lies  the  impossibility  or  even  the  great  difficulty 
of  his  elevation  under  a  native  monarch  ?     The  cup-bearer 


352  NOTES    TO    GENESI3.  [part   xi. 

mentions  Joseph  to  Pharaoh,  not  particularly  as  a  Hebrew 
youth,  but  as  a  companion  in  trouble,  whom  prosperity  had 
led  him  to  forget,  and  of  whom  he  is  reminded  by  the 
monarch's  very  remarkable  dream.  The  king  would  na- 
turally send  for  him,  whether  he  were  of  the  same  stock 
with  himself  or  not,  for  the  plain  reason  that  the  Egyptian 
wise  men  were  unable  to  satisfy  his  mind.  On  the  same 
principle,  the  Babylonian  monarch,  in  similar  circumstances, 
sent  for  Daniel.  Dan.  v.  J  3 — 16.r — Politic  considerations 
may  indeed  have  led  Pharaoh  to  adopt  the  counsel  of  Joseph, 
but  a  moderate  degree  of  good  sense  would  of  itself  induce 
him  to  follow  it.  The  high  estimate  in  which  the  priests 
were  held  sufficiently  accounts  for  '  the  benefit  of  clergy' 
with  which  Pharaoh  thought  proper  to  favor  them.  And 
that  Joseph  and  the  Egyptian  lords  dined  at  separate  tables, 
is  at  least  as  explicable  on  the  theory  that  the  ruling  dynasty 
was  Egyptian,  as  on  that  of  Jost  and  Heeren.  Indeed,  on 
this  theory,  the  supposition  that  the  hostile  feelings  of  the 
natives,  whether  of  the  common  class  or  of  the  grandees, 
towards  the  shepherds,  showed  themselves  as  is  represented 
in  the  history,  seems  to  involve  a  difficulty.  It  appears  un- 
natural to  understand  the  term  "  Egyptian,"  in  the  thirty- 
fourth  verse  of  the  forty-sixth  chapter,  of  the  subjugated 
natives.  So  bold  an  expression  of  contempt  and  detestation 
is  not  likely  to  have  been  generally  made  by  the  people 
at  the  very  time  that  they  were  forced  to  submit  to  the 
hated  rulers.  Still,  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  such  a  state  of 
things  as  this  would  imply  might  temporarily  exist,  as  was 
the  case  in  England  in  a  considerable  degree  during  some 
time  after  the  Norman  conquest.  The  brevity  of  the  nar- 
rative, and  the  want  of  other  clear  historical  data,  seem 
to  preclude  the  possibility  of  arriving  at  thorough  satisfac- 
tion on  such  a  topic. 

The   third  argument  of  Jost  is  based  on  the  supposition 


CHAP,  ixxvii.  1 — L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS,  353 

which  he  assumes  in  tlie  first,  which  would  indeed  account 
for  the  fact  that  Joseph's  brethren  did  not  recognize  him, 
but  is  by  no  means  necessary  for  this  purpose.  And  surely 
Joseph  might  aflfect  to  regard  them  as  spies,  if  the  shepherd 
dynasty  had  been  conquered  and  expelled  not  long  before 
their  arrival. — And,  in  reference  to  the  last  argument,  it  is 
evident,  that  the  kindness  with  which  Joseph  was  himself 
regarded  by  Pharaoh,  and  the  gratitude  of  the  monarch  for 
his  favorite's  services  both  to  himself  and  the  nation,  are 
sufficient  to  account  for  the  friendly  reception  of  his  father 
and  family;  although  the  author's  theory  is  quite  in  harmony 
with  the  circumstances  of  the  narrative.  It  agrees  also 
with  the  remark  in  Ex.  i.  8,  that  "  a  new  king  arose,  who 
did  not  regard  Joseph."  For,  if  the  re-establishment  of  the 
rightful  Egyptian  dynasty  on  the  expulsion  of  the  shepherds 
is  here  meant,  Joseph's  memory  would  of  course  be  disre- 
garded, and  the  Israelitish  population  despised. 

(155.)  xliv,  5.  The  phrase  tDHi'^  ©ni  in  this  verse,  in  all 
probability,  is  equivalent  to  the  same  phrase  in  v.  15.  Most 
of  the  ancient  versions,  including  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate, 
give  it  the  meaning  of  augur,  divine  :  and  this  is  adopted 
by  our  English  translation,  although  in  the  margui  it  follows 
the  Chaldee  Targum,  and  renders  it,  search.  The  former 
meaning  is  undoubtedly  the  usual  sense  of  the  word.  In 
addition  to  these  two  places,  it  occurs  elsewhere  in  the 
Bible,  in  Gen.  xxx.  27,  Lev.  xix.  26,  Num.  xxiii.  23,  xxiv.  1, 
Deut.  xviii.  10,  1  Kings  xx.  33,  2  Kings  xvii.  17,  xxi.  6,  and 
2  Chron.  xxxiii.  6.  In  some  of  these  places  it  is  connected 
with  other  words  expressive  of  magical  superstition,  and 
always  conveys  this  idea,  or  that  of  foreboding  or  taking  as 
an  omen,  unless  Gen.  xxx.  27,  and  the  texts  under  considera- 
tion, be  regarded  as  exceptions.  If  the  idea  of  divining  be 
intended,  it  will  not  follow  that  the  cup  is  represented  as  the 
45 


354  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

medium  by  which  the  divination  was  practised.  That  can- 
not be  Joseph's  meaning  in  v.  15,  for  the  cup  had  not  been 
in  his  possession,  and  to  recover  it  would  have  been  the  very 
intention  of  the  supposed  divination.  Neither  is  it  the  ne- 
cessary meaning  of  the  clause  in  the  fifth  verse,  which  may 
be  rendered,  after  several  of  the  Jewish  interpreters,  '  on 
account  of  which  he  would  divine  ;'  that  is,  he  would  re- 
sort to  divination  in  oi'der  to  ascertain  what  had  become 
of  it.  See  Munster,  De  Muis,  and  Cartwright  in  the  Critici 
Sacri. 

The  practice  of  divining  by  means  of  a  cup  is  mentioned 
by  Rosenmiiller  in  his  Alte  und  neue  Morgenland,  I.  p.  210  ss. 
He  refers  to  Jamblicus  on  the  Mysteries  of  the  Egyptians, 
Lib.  III.  sect.  14,  who  says,  that  by  means  of  certain  figures 
reflected  by  the  rays  of  light  in  clear  water,  future  circum- 
stances were  prognosticated ;  and  to  Augustin,  who,  in  his 
treatise,  de  Civitate  Dei,  Lib.  VII,  cap.  35,  quotes  a  place 
of  a  lost  work  of  Varro,  wherein  it  is  said  that  this  sort  of 
divination  originated  with  the  Persians. 

The  manner  of  divination  is  stated  to  be  as  follows.  Small 
pieces  of  gold  or  silver  leaf  or  thin  plate  were  thrown  into 
a  cup,  intermingled  with  precious  stones,  on  which  certain 
characters*  were  engraven.  Then  the  inquirer  repeated 
some  forms  of  adjuration,  and  invoked  the  devil.  The  an- 
swer was  communicated  in  various  ways :  sometimes  by  an 
intelligible  voice ;  sometimes  by  the  same  signs  appearing 
on  the  surface  of  the  water  as  had  been  engraven  on  the 
precious  stones ;  sometimes  by  exhibiting  the  image  of  the 
person  respecting  whom  the  applicant  would  inquire. 
Cornelius  Agrippa,  de  Occulta  Philosophia,  Lib.  I.  cap.  57, 
mentions  also,  that  many  were  accustomed  to  throw  melted 
wax  into  a  vessel  of  water,  and  from  the  forms  which  it  as- 
sumed, to  infer  the  answers  to  the  proposed  inquiries. 

In  addition  to  the  writers  above  mentioned,  Rosenmiiller 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOtES    TO    GENESIS.  355 

refers  to  Norden's  Travels  in  Egypt  and  Nubia,  D'Herbe- 
lot's  Bibliotheque  Orientale  under  Giam  and  Giemschid,  and 
Von  Hammer's  Collection  of  Poems. 

Of  the  fact  that  sucli  a  superstitious  usage  existed,  there 
can  be  no  doubt ;  whether  it  prevailed  as  anciently  as  the 
time  of  Joseph,  is  uncertain.  However,  if  divination  of  any 
kind  is  alluded  to  in  the  places  before  us,  this  will  not  prove 
that  Joseph  practised  it.  Both  he  and  the  steward  may  ac- 
commodate their  language  to  the  ignorance  of  the  brothers. 
And  in  neither  of  the  verses  is  a  direct  act  of  Joseph  ne- 
cessarily implied  ;  the  meaning  may  be,  that  he  could  ascer- 
tain the  theft  by  applying  to  the  divines,  for  which  his  dig- 
nity and  station  afforded  him  every  facility. 

(156.)  In  the  details  of  v.  8 — 27,  it  is  proper  to  note  some 
slight  difficulties.  In  v.  8,  Jacob  is  mentioned,  because  he 
is  the  head  of  all,  and  therefore  properly  introduces  "  the 
children  of  Israel."  Or  else  this  phrase  is  equivalent  to 
'Israelites,'  as  'children  of  Eber,"  x.  21,  is  to  'Hebrews,' 
and  consequently  includes  Jacob  himself. — The  order  in 
which  the  names  of  the  children  are  given  is  as  follows  : 
(1)  Leah's  children;  Reuben,  Simeon,  Levi,  Judah,  Issachar, 
Zebulon  ;  (2)  Zilpah's  ;  Gad,  Asher  ;  (3)  Rachel's  ;  Joseph, 
Benjamin;  (4)  Bilhah's;  Dan,  Naphthali. — Shuckford,  ubi 
sup.  p.  198,  supposes  that  the  names  of  the  other  sons 
were  originally  added  to  Reuben's,  and  have  been  lost. 
But  this  is  a  mere  conjecture,  and  in  Num.  xxvi.  5,  the  list  is 
similar. 

Verse  15.  To  introduce  Jochabed  from  Ex.  vi.  20,  in 
order  to  make  up  the  number  thirty-three,  is  exceedingly 
unreasonable,  unless  it  be  supposed  to  have  fallen  out  of  the 
text  in  this  place,  for  which  there  is  no  warrant.  It  is  far 
better  to  allow  a  popular  and  somewhat  loose  phraseology, 
and  to  include  Jacob  himself  in  the  reckoning.     Of  course, 


356  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

Dinah  must  be  added,  and  the  sons  of  Pharez,  as  those  of 
Beriah  are  in  v.  17.  Er  and  Onan  were  dead.  The  word 
"  daughters"  is  an  enalk^ge  numeri,  the  pkn'al  for  the  singular, 
as  in  V.  23,  the  term  "  sons." 

Verse  20.  Here  and  elsewhere  the  Sepluagint  differs 
greatly  from  the  Hebrew  text.  Perhaps  it  is  interpolated. 
It  is  by  no  means  important  to  reconcile  the  two.  Compare 
Num.  xxvi.  29,  1  Chron.  vh.  14,  20.  In  v.  27  also,  the  Sep- 
tuagint  reads  nine  instead  of  two,  disagreeing  with  v.  20,  and 
without  the  sanction  of  one  ancient  version. — In  Acts  vii. 
14,  the  number  of  Jacob's  family  that  settled  in  Egypt  is 
said  to  have  been  seventy-five  ;  here,  seventy.  The  com- 
mentators, and  particularly  Kuinoel  on  the  Acts,  state  the 
various  ways  of  reconciling  this  discrepancy.  Dr.  Hales, 
ubi  sup.  Vol.  II.  p.  160,  attempts  to  remove  the  difficulty 
thus.  Excluding  Jacob,  the  father,  and  Joseph  and  his  two 
sons,  who  were  already  in  Egypt,  the  number  is  sixty-six. 
To  this  he  adds  nine  wives,  Judah's  being  dead,  Joseph's 
already  in  Egypt,  and  Simeon's  being  also  dead,  which  he 
infers  from  the  fact  that  Shaul  was  the  son  of  a  Canaanitish 
woman,  (v.  10  ;)  which  will  hardly  be  allowed  much  weight 
as  an  argument. — I  suppose  St.  Stephen  gave  the  commonly 
received  number,  founded  on  the  Septuagint,  as  St.  Paul 
also  most  probably  does  in  Gal.  iii.  17  ;  without,  in  either 
case,  authorizing  the  enumeration  of  that  version. 

(157.)  Jablonski,  ubi  sup.  Tom.  II.  p.  77 — 224,  places 
Goshen  in  upper  Egypt,  in  the  prefecture  of  Hercules, 
vo/Aoff  'H^axXswTYif,  an  island  made  in  the  Heptanomis,  by  means 
of  a  canal  connected  in  two  places  with  the  Nile,  and  called 
to  this  day  '  the'  canal  of  Joseph.'  But,  notwithstanding  the 
very  extensive  discussions  of  this  learned  writer,  the  facts 
stated  in  the  history  of  the  Exode  seem  evidently  to  show, 
that  it  must  have  been  situated  east  of  the  Nile,  in  lower 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  357 

Egypt,  and  not  a  great  distance  from  the  western  arm  of 
the  Red  Sea.  It  was  probably  near  the  ancient  HeUopoUs, 
and  being  a  flat  country,  and  distinguished  for  the  richness 
of  the  soil,  and  the  excellence  of  its  pasturage,  was  in  all 
respects  most  suitable  for  the  Hebrews,  both  with  respect 
to  their  residence,  and  the  facilities  it  afforded  for  their  re- 
moval. In  Gen.  xlvii.  11,  it  is  named,  either  in  whole  or  in 
part,  "the  land  of  Rameses."  The  author  just  referred  to, 
ubi  sup.  p.  136,  explains  this  word  by  'men  of  sheep,'  'per- 
sons leading  the  pastoral  life  ;'  and  supposes  the  name  to 
have  been  applied  by  the  Israelites,  meaning  *  shepherd 
country.'  But  the  city  of  the  same  name  mentioned  in  Exod. 
i.  11,  as  built  or  at  least  repaired  and  ornamented  by  the 
Israelites,  he  identifies  with  On  or  Heliopolis,*  now  called 
by  the  Arabs  Ain  shonesh,  'eye  or  fountain  of  the  sun  ;'  and 
he  analyses  the  word,  so  as  to  derive  the  meaning  of  '  coun- 
try' or  'place  of  the  sun.'  p.  138,  139.  Goshen  is  often 
called  in  the  Septuagint  rsciv  or  rstfsV  'A^a/3iac,  as  it  lay  con- 
tiguous to  the  latter  country,  and  the  name  Arabia  was 
anciently  employed,  somewhat  loosely,  to  comprehend  all 
that  region  of  land  east  of  the  Nile,  and  bordering  on  Ara- 
bia properly  so  denominated.  See  Bryant's  Analysis,  Vol. 
VI.  p.  105  ss. ;  Rosenmiiller  on  Gen.  xlv.  10 ;  and  his  A. 
und  N.  Morgenland,  Vol.  I.  p.  215. — The  hypothesis  of 
Jablonski  is  examined  and  refuted  by  Michaelis  in  his  Sup- 
plementa  ad  Lexica  Hebraica,  under  ltp5,  p.  371 — 381. 
On  the  situation  of  Goshen,  see  also  Budda3us,  Hist.  Eccles. 
V.  T.  Per.  iii.  sect.  iii.  §  13,  Tom.  I.  p.  33G. 

That  the  Mitzraim  to  which  the  Israelites  went  was  not 
Egypt,  but  a  country  in  sandy  Arabia,  is  a  theory  main- 

*  N.  B.  The  Septuagint  in  Exod.  i.  11,  evidently  distinguishes  them: 


358  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

tained  by  Beke  ;  but  how  unsuccessfully,  is  shown  in  the 
London  Quarterly  Review  for  November,  1834. 

(158.)  Instead  of  "he  removed,"  (v,  21,)  the  Septuagint, 
agreeing  with  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  and  followed  by 
the  Vulgate,  reads,  'he  subjected,'  xarsSovXudaTo.  The  sub- 
stitution of  a  1  for  a  *l  in  the  word  *l"'!n5?.!l  accounts  for  this 
meaning  ;  which,  it  must  be  granted,  agrees  very  well  with 
the  context,  and  expresses  the  feudatory  condition  to  which 
the  people  were  reduced  under  the  monarch.  If  the  present 
Hebrew  reading  be  correct,  the  meaning  may  be,  that 
Joseph,  having  secured  to  the  crown  the  right  of  all  the 
lands,  made  a  new  distribution  to  the  former  owners,  trans- 
ferring them,  however,  to  residences  remote  from  their  na- 
tive places,  thus  obliging  them  to  form  new  associations, 
and  lessening  the  probability  of  sedition.  See  Grotius  in  loc. 
Q'^l^r?  "  to  cities,"  will  then  be  elliptical  for,  '  from  cities  to 
cities,'  as  the  Targum  renders  it.  If  it  should  be  said,  that 
such  an  arrangement  would  be  a  wanton  exercise  of  power, 
indicating  the  arbitrary  will  of  a  tyrant,  rather  than  the 
benevolence  of  a  kind  and  equitable  governor,  the  evident 
answer  is,  that  we  are  too  little  acquainted  with  the  internal 
condition  of  Egypt  at  that  time,  to  enable  us  to  form  a  right 
judgment  in  the  case.  Such  a  distribution  of  persons  and 
property  may  have  been  necessary,  in  order  to  secure  the 
peace  and  safety  of  the  community. — Another  interpreta- 
tion, however,  has  been  proposed,  namely,  that  Joseph  re- 
moved the  people  from  the  country  to  their  respective  cities, 
for  the  more  convenient  distribution  of  food ;  and  that  this 
regulation  extended  throughout  the  whole  of  Egypt.  This 
view  agrees,  no  doubt,  with  the  Hebrew,  and  requires  no 
ellipsis.  But  it  seems  inconsistent  with  the  context,  for  the 
twenty-first  verse  is  closely  connected  both  with  the  preceding 
and  subsequent,  making  the  removal  spoken  of  an  immediate 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1—L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS..  359 

result  of  what  had  just  been  stated  ;  whereas,  if  the  chief  or 
only  object  to  be  effected  were  convenience,  it  might  be 
supposed  that  the  regulation  would  have  been  adopted  from 
the  first.  Perhaps,  however,  as  the  severity  of  the  famine 
increased,  and  the  repeated  failures  of  the  Nile  to  overflow 
its  banks  augmented  the  sterility  of  the  soil,  the  inhabitants 
entirely  abandoned  all  agricultural  efforts,  and,  at  Joseph's 
direction,  removed  to  their  respective  cities.  On  the  cessa- 
tion of  the  famine,  they  may  have  returned  to  their  former 
residences, — It  is  evident,  that  the  people  do  not  consider 
Joseph's  arrangement  as  a  hardship  ;  on  the  contrary,  they 
regard  him  as  their  benefactor  and  saviour. 

(159.)  Instead  of  "head  of  the  bed,"  in  v.  31,  the  Sep- 
tuagint  has  '  top  of  his  staff,'  reading  ntp52  for  tl^^,  and  tljis 
is  followed  by  the  apostle  in  Heb.  xi.  21.  The  idea  is,  that, 
bent  down  by  years  and  infirmities,  the  venerable  Jacob 
leaned  on  his  trusty  staff,  the  companion  of  his  wanderings, 
(see  xxxii.  11,)  and  in  this  posture  gave  thanks.  In  the  place 
just  referred  to,  however,  another  word,  bj5)3,  is  used  for 
"  staff." — -The  common  reading  and  translation  are  quite 
perspicuous.  The  patriarch  turns  his  face  toward  the  pil- 
low of  his  bed,  to  exclude  from  his  mind  all  external  objects, 
while  he  expresses  his  gratitude  to  God.  Both  Symniacbus 
and  Aquila  retain  the  word  'bed;'  and  this  meaning  appears 
to  be  sanctioned  by  1  Kings  i.  47,  "and  the  king  bowed  him- 
self upon  the  bed ;"  for,  although  the  word  there  employed  is 
i3''25)3,  yet  the  whole  turn  of  the  expression  is  the  same  as 
that  of  the  text.  Compare  also,  for  the  general  sentiment, 
2  Kings  XX.  2  :  "  then  he  turned  his  face  to  the  wall  and 
prayed." 

(160.)  The  nature  of  the  case  requires  this,  and  probably 
the  Hebrew  expresses  it.     The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  un- 


360  .  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  xi. 

doubtedly  do  ;  the  former  has  svaXXdg  raj  x^'f^^j  ^^^  the 
latter  commutans  manus. 

(161.)  It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  v.  15,  16,  the  "  God"  of 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  is  identified  with  "  the  Angel" 
who  is  said  to  have  "  redeemed"  the  patriarch  "  from  all 
evil,"  and  whom  he  invokes  to  "  bless  the  lads."  It  is  cer- 
tain, therefore,  that  Jacob  regards  this  being  as  divine. 

(162.)  With  xlviii.  22,  compare  John  iv.  5.  See  also  Gen. 
xxxiii.  18,  19,  and  Josh.  xxiv.  32,  from  which  it  would  ap- 
pear that  this  property  was  originally  purchased  by  Jacob. 
Probably,  after  Jacob's  removal  mentioned  in  the  thirty-fifth 
chapter,  it  had  been  seized  by  the  Hittites,  (called  here  by 
the  general  name  of  Amorites,)  from  whom  it  had  subse- 
quently been  forcibly  recovered  by  the  patriarch. 

(163.)  The  genuineness  of  Jacob's  dying  address  to  his 
sons  was  questioned  by  Le  Clerc,  and  since  his  time,  has 
been  denied  by  several  German  critics,  who  are  unwilling 
to  allow  it  a  higher  antiquity  than  the  age  of  David.  A  no- 
tice of  the  chief  writers  on  both  sides  of  this  question  may  be 
seen  in  Rosenmiiller's  note  on  the  first  verse.  He  acquiesces 
in  the  generally  received  opinion,  that  we  have  the  declara- 
tions of  the  dying  patriarch,  which  his  children  and  their 
posterity  had  been  careful  to  preserve.  The  objections 
which  have  been  urged  against  this  opinion  are  of  very  little 
weight :  indeed,  to  the  consistent  believer  in  divine  revela- 
tion, of  none  at  all.  The  unusual  elevation  of  the  style  is 
altogether  in  character  with  the  subject  of  the  address  and 
its  poetic  conformation,  and  somewhat  of  sublimity  might  be 
expected  in  such  a  speaker  and  on  such  an  occasion.  And 
it  may  well  be  assumed,  that  Jacob  had  some  natural  poetic 
talent,  which  the  circumstances  in  which  he  was,  and  the  re- 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  361 

mote  future  towards  which  he  looked,  would  naturally  have 
called  into  exercise.  Moreover,  his  address  is  in  part  prophe- 
tic. The  inspired  mind  of  the  patriarch  sees  distant  events, 
and  describes  them  in  the  same  manner  as  other  prophets 
exhibit  their  revelations;  in  language  considerably  figurative, 
and  in  general  terms,  sufficiently  clear  indeed  to  constitute 
predictions,  and  yet  not  so  perspicuous  in  particulars,  as  his- 
tory, written  subsequently  to  the  facts  and  circumstances  an- 
nounced, would  naturally  have  described  them.  The  ground 
on  which  the  genuineness  of  this  portion  of  Genesis  has  been 
denied,  would,  if  admitted,  do  away  whatever  is  properly 
prophetic  in  the  sacred  scriptures  ;  and  in  fact,  this  is  the  re- 
sult to  which  neological  principles  have  led  their  advocates. 

The  simplicity  with  which  some  of  the  opponents  of  the 
genuineness  of  this  chapter  state  their  views  may  almost  be 
considered  as  amusing.  "  The  most  natural  view  (says  Va- 
TER,)  that  can  be  adopted  after  reading  this  beautiful  poem, 
is  certainly  this  :  that  it  was  sung  at  a  time  when  the  Israel- 
itish  tribes  held  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  had  ex- 
perienced the  fates  which  are  herein  so  clearly  described." 
And  Bertoldt,  after  remarking  that  "  criticism  can  have  no 
other  object  in  view  than  to  establish  and  elucidate  historical 
truth,"  infers,  that  "  consequently  an  inclination  has  for  a  long 
time  prevailed,  to  consider  as  interpolations  and  additions  of 
a  later  age,  whatever  the  Pentateuch  contains,  which  mani- 
festly cannot  have  been  written  by  Moses,  with  the  ordinary 
natural  powers  of  a  man."  See  Hengstenberg's  Authentic 
des  Pentateuchs,  II.  p.  181,  who  very  properly  observes,  that 
it  requires  neither  art  nor  wit  to  discover  anachronisms  on 
such  principles  as  these. 

Herder,  in  his  fifth  letter  on  the  study  of  theology,  p.  62, 

supposes,  that  the  well  known  character  of  Jacob's  sons 

suggested  to  the  dying  patriarch  the  germ  of  his  predictions 

respecting  the  descendants  of  each.     As  we  are  very  im- 

46 


362  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

perfectly  informed  of  the  actions  and  characteristics  of  each 
of  these  individuals,  and  also  of  each  trihe,  we  cannot  go 
much  beyond  conjecture  in  relation  to  such  a  point.  The 
reference  to  some  facts  in  the  lives  of  Reuben,  Simeon, 
Levi  and  Joseph,  is  in  favor  of  Herder's  supposition.  If  the 
history  of  each  tribe  had  been  particularly  detailed  in  the 
Bible,  Jacob's  last  declarations  would  no  doubt  be  clearer, 
and  their  prophetic  character  the  more  fully  illustrated. 

(164.)  Notes  on  xlix. : 

V.  2.  D'^/2^tl  fl^"in!J5ln.  'In  future  af^es,  hereafter.'  This 
phrase,  which  is  sometimes  applied  to  the  time  of  the  Mes- 
siah and  the  dispensation  of  the  Gospel,  as  in  Isa.  ii.  2,  Mic, 
iv.  1,  is  frequently  used  in  the  general  sense  of  futurity.  See 
Num.  xxiv.  14,  Deut.  iv.  30,  Dan.  ii.  28.  The  contents  of 
the  chapter  prove  this  to  be  the  meaning  here. 

3.  ^5i5^  il^tr'i^ni  ^i3  rii^SS:  ^-1:55  p^iiJ:").  'Reuben,  my 
first-born  art  thou,  my  strength,  and  the  beginning  of  my 
power.'  The  latter  expressions  have  been  supposed  to  con- 
vey the  idea  of  vigor,  beyond  what  might  be  thought  to 
belong  to  children  born  in  a  more  advanced  age  of  the 
parent.  Compare  "ID^'^  and  IjS^  £T^tP!Ji'n  in  Deut.  xxi.  17; 
and  see  Ps.  Ixxviii.  51,  cv.  36.  The  Septuagint  translates 
this  phrase  in  Deuteronomy,  and  here  by  d^x^  tsxvuv  fxS, 
which  gives  the  general  idea  of  priority  of  birth,  and  per- 
haps nothing  more  is  intended.  The  same  language  is  used 
by  Virgil  in  the  ^Eneid,  I.  664,  where  Venus  addresses  her 
son  in  these  terms  : 

"  Nate,  mea3  vires,  mea  magna  potentia." 

See  also  Ovid,  Met.  v.  365. 

V  ^i!l?.l  t15<ip  "ifl^  '  The  superiority  of  excellence,  and 
the  superiority  of  dignity,'  that  is,  the  abstract  for  the  con- 
crete,  'chief  in   excellence,   and  chief  in   dignity.'     ilJJ^'P 


CHAP,  sxxvii.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  363 

is  used  for  excellence  in  Job  xiii.  11,  and  perhaps  in  Gen.  iv.  7. 
ly  is  often  expressive  of  dignity,  (compare  Hab.  iii.  4,)  and 
is  sometimes  translated  in  the  Septuagint  by  Si^ci  and  Tif/^o^. 
See   Ps.  Ixviii.  35,   (34.)  xxix.  1,  xcvi.  7,  Isa.  xii.  2.     It    is 
generally  rendered  in  this  passage  by  '  strength'  or  '  power.' 
Thus  our  English  translation,  De  Wette,  and  Rosenmiiller. 
But  the  parallelism  with  Jli^tp  is  better  preserved  by  trans- 
lating it  'dignity,' and  then  both  the  clauses  of  the  verse, 
ii:j%b  "li?,l  and  T;^  1i]^  express   the  same  general  idea  of 
majesty.     Dathe  gives  a  similar  view  of  the  meaning :  prin- 
ceps  dignitate,  princeps  honore  ;  and  the  Vulgate  version  of 
the  latter  clause  is,  major  in  imperio.     The  Chaldee  para- 
phrases explain  the  whole   passage  of  the  rights  of  primo- 
geniture, priesthood,  and  royalty,  taken  away  by  the  patri- 
arch from  his    eldest    son,  and   conferred    respectively  on 
Joseph,  to  whom  was  given  the  double  portion,  (compare 
1  Chron.  v.  1,2,  Gen.  xlviii.  5,)  on  Levi,  from  whom  sprang 
the  sacerdotal  family,  and  on  Judah,  who  was  the  ancestor 
of  the  line  of  David. 

4.  inivl-bX  Q'?725  THS.  '  Lasciviousness,  (bursting 
out,  or  boiling  over,)  like  water,  thou  shalt  not  be  chief.'  It 
is  not  easy  to  determine  the  meaning  of  TPlS.  It  occurs 
only  four  times  in  the  Bible  ;  twice  in  the  form  of  the  parti- 
ciple Benoni  Q^TDl^,  meaning  light  and  vicious  persons, 
Jud.  ix.  4,  Zeph.  iii.  4,  once  as  a  noun  in  the  construct  state, 
QJn^Tn.l,  their  lightness,  Jer.  xxiii.  32,  and  in  this  place.  In 
Syriac  }^2>  means  '  to  be  lascivious,'  and  the  noun  in  the 
emphatic  form,  \Zo)^,  is  used  for  lasciviousness  in  the 
Syriac  version,  2'Cor.  xii.  21,  Eph.  iv.  19.  This  significa- 
tion suits  the  context,  and  may  be  implied  in  the  other  three 
places  where  the  word  is  used.  If  the  phrase  "  like  water" 
be  intended  to  illustrate  the  clause  immediately  following, 
the  force  of  the  comparison  will  lie  in  this,  that  the  insolent 


364  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  xi. 

and  lascivious  conduct  of  Reuben  is  likened  to  water,  which 
breaks  through  all  restraint,  and  spreads  its  desolating  inun- 
dation over  the  private  and  most  highly  cultivated  garden. 
Or  else,  more  probably,  the  figure  is  taken  from  water 
swelling  and  foaming  and  boiling  in  a  pot,  so  as  to  over- 
flow its  sides,  as  Gesenius  thinks.  See  his  Lexicon,  and  also 
his  Commentatio  de  Pentateuchi  Samaritani  Origine,  &c. 
p.  33.  If  the  figure  were  abandoned,  the  idea  might  be  ex- 
pressed thus  :  '  unrestrained  in  lasciviousness.'  I  have  sub- 
stituted the  adjective  for  the  noun,  in  accommodation  to  the 
English  idiom.  The  Vulgate  version  is,  effusus  es  sicut 
aqua ;  the  Septuagint,  s^ufS^iarig  ug  v&^^,  thou  hast  burst  out 
in  insolence  like  water.  Water  when  poured  out,  sinks  into 
the  ground,  or  evaporates  in  the  air,  without  the  possibility 
of  being  gathered  again,  (compare  2  Sam.  xiv.  14) ;  thus 
the  figure  will  intimate  Reuben's  loss  of  supremacy,  which 
is  fully  expressed  in  that  clause. — But  most  probably  the 
connexion  of  this  phrase  is  with  the  preceding  word. 

^"j^n:?^  ^^5^'?2  n^bi?  ^3.  'Because  thou  ascendedst  the 
bed  of  thy  father.'     See  Gen.  xxxv.  22. 

Itib'J  ^3?^^^ tlbbn   m.     'Then  didst   thou  pollute 

it. — He  ascended  my  couch.'  Dathe  would  connect  these 
two  clauses,  and  read  ribS^,  in  the  infinitive  ;  and,  therefore, 
he  translates  the  whole  thus :  polluisti  stratum  meum  isto 
ascensu,  or,  ascendendo,  and  De  Wette  agrees  with  him  : 
entweihtest  mein  Lager  besteigend.  There  is  more  force, 
however,  in  considering  the  latter  clause  as  conveying  an 
abrupt  declaration  of  the  patriarch's  injured  feelings,  when 
he  recollected  the  insolent  and  libidinous  attack  which  his 
eldest  son  had  made  upon  his  domestic  peace.  The  change 
of  person,  which  is  very  common  in  Hebrew  poetry  as  well 
as  in  all  other,  places  the  speaker's  indignation  in  a  stronger 
light,  and  makes  him  appeal  for  its  justice  to  the  sympathies 
and  feelings  of  all  who  heard  him. 


CHAP.  IXXVII.I— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  365 

5.  C^^ni^  ''"lb"!  Ii5>>3'©.  'Simeon  and  Levi  are  brethren/ 
They  were  the  sons  of  Leah,  (see  Gen.  xxix.  33,  34,)  children 
of  the  same  mother,  and  of  the  same  character  and  disposi- 
tion, which  is  no  doubt  the  idea  intended  to  be  conveyed.  Com- 
pare the  useofuio,  inMatt.xxiii.3L :  Qn^tinS/p  G^H  ^b^. 

*  Instruments  of  violence  are  their  swords.'     It  is  impossible 
to  say  with  certainty  what  is  the  sense  of  this  place.     It 
refers  to  the  history  in  chap,  xxxiv.     The  chief  difficulty 
lies  in  the  word  Qn^sTi"!?/?,  the  meaning  of  which,  as  it  never 
occurs  elsewhere,  has  been  sought  in  the  cognate  languages. 
Dathe  derives  it  from  the  Syriac,    9s>o  '  to  betroth,'  and 
translates  thus  :  sponsalia  cruenta  perfecerunt ;  referring  of 
course  to  the  negotiations  relating  to  Dinah's  marriage  in 
xxxiv.  8 — 24.     But,  as  it  does  not  appear  that  Simeon  and 
Levi  took  a  more  prominent  part  in  this  matter  than  their 
brothers,  and  as  the  marriage  was  not  effected,  this   transla- 
tion is  not  supported  by  the  history. — De  Dieu  and  others 
appeal  to  the  Ethiopic  and  Arabic  for  the  sense  of  '  consul- 
tations, machinations,'  and  this  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of 
the  Septuagint,  tfuvsTg'Xsrfav  d^ixi'av  £|  h^idsus  dvruv.     All  these 
versions  require  a  different  reading  of  the  first  word,  viz. 
^b5  for  ""bD,  and  this  has  the  sanction  of  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch, which  reads  ib^.    The  meaning  will  then  be:  'they 
accomplished  or  executed  their  iniquitous  plots  ;'  and  this 
agrees  with  the  next  verse,  although  it  is  not  therefore  ne- 
cessarily the  true  exposition.— Our  translation,  "  their  habi- 
tations," is  derived  from  Jl^^^^p,  said  by  some  Jewish  com- 
mentators to  be  equivalent  to  l^ti^,  'a  dwelling,'  (see  Ps.  I  v. 
16,)  or  rather,  a  sojourning.     Rashi  mentions  this  meaning, 
although'he  prefers  another.     "  The  word  denotes  a  sword, 
in  Greek  M-axai^a.     Another  interpretation :  Dn^im"i::)2,  in 
the  land,  Qnm!i)2,  of  their  sojourning,  they  employed  in- 


366  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part   XI. 

struments  of  violence,  as  ']''rmbl/21  '^■'lnin^/2,  (Ezek.  xvi. 
3,)  and  thus  the  Targum  of  Onkelos."  In  this  interpreta- 
tion Aben  Ezra  acquiesces:  "in  my  opinion  it  is  equivalent  to 
"j^ilimD'O  (Ezek.  xvi.  3,)  the  i  being  omitted."  The  Tar- 
gum translates  the  clause  thus :  "  strong  men  in  the  land 
of  '  their  sojourning,'  llSliTl^fTi Jl,  they  exercised  power." — 
The  Vulgate  version  is,  vasa  iniquitatis  bellantia,  and  Jerome 
says  that,  according  to  the  Hebrew  verity,  it  is  vasa  iniquitatis 
arma  eorum.  Qua3s.  in  Gen.  Tom.  II.  p.  545.  This  interpre- 
tation is  founded  upon  the  opinion,  just  given  from  Rashi, 
that  tTl^/?  is  the  same  word  as  ixa-x^aiPo.  of  the  Greeks,  and 
that  it  was  introduced  into  their  language,  along  with  many 
others,  from  the  east.  See  Rosenmiiller  in  loc.  and  Drusius, 
nota3  majores,  in  Grit.  Sac.  Tom.  I.  P.  I.  p.  1077 ;  also  Gese- 
nius,  who  remarks  that  "this  interpretation  is  implied  by  R. 
Elieser  in  Pirke  Aboth,"  c.  38;  "Jacob  cursed  their  swords, 
(that  is,  those  of  Levi  and  Simeon,)  in  the  Greek  tongue." 
Upon  the  whole,  it  is  probable  that  this  version  has  as  strong 
claims  as  any  other ;  perhaps,  indeed,  it  is  to  be  preferred. 
It  is  given  by  Luther:  ihre  Schwerdter  sind  morderische 
Waffen  ;  who  is  followed  by  Rosenmiiller  and  De  Wette,  the 
latter  of  whom  expresses  the  sense  in  these  terms  :  Werk- 
zeuge  des  Frevels  ihre  Schwerter.  Compare  the  language 
in  xxxiv.  25.  "  Simeon  and  Levi  took  each  man  his  sword." 
6.  ^tp'S^  i^d?1-b^  tDiOS.  '  In  their  secret  council  enter 
not,  my  soul.'  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  iDltD  refers  to 
the  project  to  destroy  the  Shcchemites,  which  the  sons  of 
Jacob  had  planned  and  executed,  and  that  he  intends  to  de- 
clare in  the  strongest  terms  his  abhorrence  of  their  conduct. 
But  the  antithesis  with  l^^op  in  the  next  clause' makes  it 
most  probable,  that  their  private  meeting  to  concert  and  ar- 
range the  scheme  is  what  the  word  is  intended  to  convey. 
This  is  a  very  usual  signification  of  liO,  and  this  may  be 


CHAP,   xxxvn.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  367 

the  meaning  of  fBaX-^  and  consilium  in  the  Septuagint  and 
Vulsate. — "^12^  Tnri~bi^  tjbnp!lL.     '  In  their  assembly  do 

O  •:-**-TTj;-  •/ 

not  join  my  heart.'  Ilip,  which  literally  n)eans  '  honor,'  is 
used  here,  as  in  Ps.  xvi.  9,  and  other  places,  for  the  noblest 
part  of  human  nature ;  and  therefore,  in  order  to  preserve 
the  parallelism  with  *  soul,'  it  is  best  to  translate  it  '  heart.'* 
The  Septuagint  version  of  this  clause  is  as  follows  :  Kai  £*? 
Tji  dug-kdii  duTwv  [i.'}\  £»iVai  to  ^tfaTO  fxjs.     The  translator  seems 

to  have  read  "^l^li  'iriiri~b!S5 ;  the  liver  being  regarded  by 
the  Greeks  as  the  seat  of  the  passions.  Ilj?!  is  the  apocopated 
future  of  il'l/l,  to  be  enflamed,  angry,  and  conveys  the  sense 
of  wrathful  excitement. 

nVilJ  qnpj?  Qj^il^^  ^25^5^  -ijin  u3;^n  ^3.  Tor  in  their 
anger  they  slew  men,  and  in  their  wantonness,  (their  wanton 
rage,)  they  destroyed  a  city.'  Rosenmiillcr  takes  tCSSS  collec- 
tively for  men,  that  is,  the  males  of  Shechem,  who  were  all  put 
to  death.  This  accords  with  the  Syriac  translation,  which  is 
plural,  and  it  is  agreeable  to  usage.  See  Judg.  viii.  22.  In 
his  version  of  the  latter  clause,  he  follows  the  Septuagint, 
sv  rff  sVi&ufAia  auruv  svsu^oxoViitfav  rav^ov :  "  in  their  desire, 
(their  rash,  headstrong  wantonness,)  "  they  hamstrung  the 
oxen,"  thus  cruelly  destroying  them.  Compare  Josh.  xi. 
9.  He  means  that  portion  only  of  the  cattle  which  it 
was  found  impracticable  to  drive  away,  as  it  is  certain 
from  xxxiv.  28,  29,  that  what  is  here  said  cannot  be  un- 
derstood of  all.  Perhaps,  if  this  translation  be  admitted, 
^1115  is  employed  figuratively  to  denote  men  of  distinction, 

*  It  is  far  more  poetic  and  spirited  to  give  to  the  future  ^niH 
an  imperative  meaning,  which  is  very  common,  than  to  throw  the 
clause  into  a  narrative  form,  as  Gesenius  has  done  :  "  in  their  assembly 
my  soul  was  not  present,  (non  interfuit.")  This  is  too  tame  for  the 
elevated  character  of  the  context. 


368  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  xi. 

princes,  like  "^5  and  I'^SiSJ.  See  Ps.  xxii.  13,  Ixviii.  31.  It 
will  then  be  a  climax  in  reference  to  '!23''i^  in  the  parallel 
clause.  De  Wette  gives  the  same  translation  as  Rosen- 
miiller.  So  also  Herder,  in  his  sixth  letter  on  the  Study  of 
Theology,  p.  70 :  "den  edlen  Stier  entnervten."  But  as  it  is 
reasonable  to  think  that  the  patriarch,  intending  to  express 
his  detestation  of  his  children's  behavior,  would  not  pass  un- 
noticed the  chief  work  of  ruin,  and  as  the  history  tells  us 
that  the  city  was  destroyed,  it  seems  preferable  to  adopt  the 
reading  *1^12J,  '  a  wall,'  which  has  the  sanction  of  the  Chal- 
dee,  Syriac,  and  Vulgate  versions.  It  will  then  be  figura- 
tive for '  city.'  ^p]^,  which  properly  means  '  to  root  out,' is 
applied  in  Zeph.  ii.  4,  to  the  complete  destruction  of  a  city. 
In  Syriac  this  meaning  is  very  frequent,  and  Michaelis,  in 
his  edition  of  Castell's  Lexicon,  p.  669,  670,  has  given 
several  examples,  with  the  view  of  illustrating  the  word  in 
the  place  before  us.  The  Chaldee  '1p>5'.  is  used  to  express 
the  entire  overthrow  and  ruin  of  nations.  See  Jer.  i.  10, 
xviii.  7,  or  Buxtorf's  Talmudic  and  Chaldee  Lexicon,  Col. 
1652. — 1"!^*)  is  plainly  to  be  taken  in  a  bad  sense  for  '  self- 
will,  wantonness.'  In  order  that  it  may  correspond  with 
the  parallel  word  Cji:^,  I  have  translated  it '  wanton  rage.' 
Dathe  has,  in  furore  suo  muros  destruxerunt. 

7.  :  b5i!!^ip^5  G^Si^n  ^P-^-^  fipln^^.  '  I  will  disperse 
them  among  Jacob,  and  will  scatter  them  among  Israel.' 
As  the  words  '  Jacob'  and  '  Israel'  are  plainly  used  for  the 
nation,  "2.  is  best  rendered  by  '  among.'  The  prophets  are 
often  said  to  do  what  they  announce  or  predict.  See  Isa. 
vi.  10,  Jer.  i.  10,  Hoa.  vi.  5.  Poetry  adopts  the  same  lan- 
guage. Thus  Silenus  surrounds  the  sisters  of  Phaeton  in 
moss,  Phaetontiadas  musco  circumdat,  that  is,  he  sings  their 
transformation.  Virg.  Eel.  vi.  62.  Compare  also  the  use  of 
movit  in  the  Georgics,  I.  123.     The  meaning  seems  to  be 


CHAP,  xxxvii.l— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  369 

this  :  '  although  these  brothers  have  been  inseparably  united 
by  congeniality  of  disposition,  their  posterity  shall  not  dwell 
contiguous  in  the  promised  land,  or  occupy  one  continuous 
tract,  like  the  other  tribes.'  Compare  Josh.  xix.  1 — 9,  from 
which  it  seems  probable,  that  the  portion  allotted  to  Simeon 
must  have  been  small,  as  it  had  been  a  part  of  Judah's. 
This  is  confirmed  by  1  Chron,  iv.  33 — 43.  The  Levites  had 
cities  appropriated  to  them  among  the  rest  of  the  tribes  ; 
and,  although  in  many  respects  the  curse  of  their  ancestor 
was  converted  into  a  blessing,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that, 
during  thos3  frequent  and  long  periods  of  Israelitish  history 
when  the  people  abandoned  themselves  to  idolatry,  the  Le- 
vites were  deprived  of  their  legal  rights.  See  Roscnmuller 
in  loc. — It  is  a  Jewish  tradition,  mentioned  in  the  Jerusalem 
Targum,  that  multitudes  of  Simeon's  posterity  were  scat- 
tered among  the  other  tribes  in  the  capacity  of  teachers  ; 
so  that  the  Hebrews  were  accustomed  to  say,  that  every 
poor  scribe  and  schoolmaster  was  a  Simeonite.  See  Fagius 
and  Drusius  in  Crit.  Sac.  Tom.  I.  p.  1049,  1079. 

8.  ^^D^  ^^^^^  ^i?^  ni^n";.  'Judah,  thy  brethren  will 
praise  thee.'  The  Hebrew  words  for  Judah  and  praise  are 
derived  from  the  same  root.  Compare  Gen.  xxix.  35.  This 
leads  to  a  paronomasia  in  the  original  which  a  translation 
cannot  express.  Some  commentators  render  the  words  thus: 
*  thou  art  Judah,  thy  brethren  will  praise  thee,'  as  if  Jacob 
had  said,  thou  art  what  thy  name  imports,  and  shalt  be  the 
praise  and  glory  of  thy  brethren.  This  interpretation  ap- 
pears to  be  sanctioned  by  Aben  Ezra ;  T^IDID  riiTliJ^  riTl?'!''' 
y^n^  "^nV  pi  "  Judah  (art)  thee ;  according  to  thy 
name,  and  thus  shall  thy  brethren  praise  thee."  Compare 
-TTsV^oc:  and  TreV^a  in  Malt.  xvi.  18.  The  patriarch  undoubtedly 
alludes  to  the  meaning  of  his  son's  name,  as  he  does  also  in 
the  case  of  Dan,  but  it  may  be  questioned  whether  the  He- 
47 


370  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  xi. 

brew  ought  to  be  translated,  '  thou  art  Judah,'  Most  pro- 
bably n^lJ^  is  pleonastic  with  the  suffix  of  T^ll"'  for  thee 
simplv;  as  H7an  in  n72n    D^DT  115<  in  Ps.  ix.  7,  *  their  re- 

X        m        '  T"  X'-  T;'-T 

membrance  has  perished  :'  where  see  Rosenmiiller.  Such 
pleonasms  are  frequent  in  Arabic,  and  not  unusual  in  He- 
brew. Compare  "^Dl^.  '^S  in  1  Sam.  xxv.  24,  and  t^lp!  d?l^ 
in  2  Chron.  xxviii.  10,  and  "^5^  "'P^'/?^  in  Zcch.  vii.  5  ;  and 
see  ScHULTENs,  Opera  Min.  p.  129,  130,  180,  181,  354,  355. 
I  have  therefore  followed  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  ver- 
sions :  'litia,  tfi  diviVai5'av  oi  a^sXqjoi  d^-  Juda,  te  laudabunt 
fratrestui.— ^^^I'JS^!  qi^"!?  ^T^.  '  Thy  hand  shall  strike  the 
backs  of  thine  enemies.'     Literally,  the  translation  would  be, 

*  thy  hand  upon  the  back.'  As  the  clause  is  elliptical,  it 
seems  best  to  supply  the  ellipsis  with  some   such   phrase  as, 

*  shall  strike.'  Compare  Isa.  ix.  3,  (4,)  where  1?2?'i2!)  tl^^ 
is  well  rendered  by  Gesenius,  in  his  translation,  '  the  stick 
which  strikes  his  back,'  The  word  ^^  is  frequently  used 
for  hack  in  the  phrase,  'giving  the  back  to  pursuers,'  in  other 
words,  '  putting  the  enemies  to  flight.'  See  Ex.  xxiii.  27, 
Josh.  vii.  8,  12.  The  Septuagint  version  is  wi  x-^^k  <f^  £*'  vwrs. 
The  Chaldee  of  Onkelos  gives  the  general  sense  tjT. 
~b?  CIi^SIkI*  '  thy  hand  shall  prevail  against  thine  enemies.' 
The  patriarch  announces  to  Judah,  that  his  posterity  shall 
be  victorious  over  their  foes.  In  the  next  clause  he  declares, 
that  their  superiority  shall  be  acknowledged  by  the  respect 
and  submission  of  all  the  other  tribes. 

9.  n:'.n3S55  f  nn  ^'\'2  n^b2>  ^pip  qp^)?  ni^n-;  nn^^  ^^t^ 

J  ^3)3'ipi  ^)2  JJ^'^^bD^.  'A  lion's  whelp  is  Judah.  From  the 
prey,  my  son,  thou  hast  gone  up  !  He  bent,  couched  down 
hke  a  lion,  and  like  a  roaring  lion  :  who  will  rouse  him  !' 
The  boldness  and  strength  of  the  tribe  are  still  the  subject 
in  the  mind  of  the  prophet,  which  he  expresses  in  figurative 


CHAP,  xxsvil.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  371 

language  usual  among  the  Hebrew  poets.  See  Deut. 
xxxiii.  20.  It  may  be  observed,  that  there  is  a  gradation 
in  the  use  of  the  metaphor  here  employed.  First,  the 
comparison  is  to  a  lion's  whelp,  then  to  a  full  grown  lion, 
and  lastly  to  the  same  animal,  whose  fierceness  is  denoted 
by  his  terrific  roar.  Several  commentators  understand 
by  the  word  i^'^^lb  a  lioness,  whose  fierceness,  especially 
when  protecting  her  young,  is  appalling.  The  change  of 
person  makes  the  description  very  graphical  and  nervous, 
and  is  quite  poetic.  Some  interpreters  explain  tl''D^  by 
'increasing,  growing  strong.'  Thus  Dathe  :  crevistiexprajda; 
and  De  Wette,  vom  llaube  wirst  du  wachsen.  If  this  inter- 
pretation be  admitted,  the  expression  will  denote  that  increase 
of  strength  which  the  posterity  of  Judah  should  acquire  by 
the  successful  results  of  warlike  enterprise.  Most  probably 
it  refers  to  the  lion's  going  up  to  his  lair  in  the  mountains 
after  having  seized  upon  his  prey,  and  conveys  this  mean- 
ing :  '  thou  wilt  return  victor  to  thy  [secure  and  impreg- 
nable] dwelling,  bearing  off  the  spoils  of  the  enemy.'  Thus 
Rosehmiiller  in  loc. 

lti^)2?  iinpi  lb"]  rirtp  iSl';-^5.  '  Authority  shall  not  de- 
part from  Judah,  neither  shall  he  want  a  lawgiver,  until  he 
comes  to  whom  (it  belongs),  and  him  the  nations  shall  obey.' 

The  interest  which  has  aKvays  been  attached  to  this  verse, 
must  be  my  apology  for  more  than  ordinary  particularity,  and 
before  I  examine  its  meaning,  I  must  be  allowed  to  give  the 
most  important  of  the  ancient  versions.  The  Septuagint 
and  Vulgate  are  omitted  ;  as,  whatever  they  contain  which 
has  a  bearing  on  the  principal  topic  of  the  prophecy  will  be 
produced  under  the  exegetical  discussion,  and  they  are  readi- 
ly accessible.  I  add  also  the  original  authorities,  that  the 
reader  may  not  be  obliged  to  depend  on  the  translations. 


372  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

Chaldee    Targum    of   Onkelos.      ']^b/i'ffi    li!^    ^^3^,^.-5^5^ 

^^VT^?  ^]p)?-^y.   ^nii^-"^.?:;!??  ^^|0l  ^T.^iT  tr^iX^, 

"One  that  exercises  authority  shall  not  depart  from  the  house 
of  Judah,  nor  a  scribe  from  his  children's  children  forever, 
until  Messiah   comes,  whose  (literally,  ivho  of  him,)  is  the 
kingdom,  and  whom  (lit.  hwi,)  the  nations  shall  obey." 
Jerusalem  Targum.     Cjii!:  ni^ni  n^n'l??  "j^Sb)?  Ip^CS  bi5b 

5j53b)2  -iti^^i  i^T  15?  ^ii^  ^5^)2  b^n^'ni^^  ^3b)3  v^^^  ^b 

T    :    -  ••••:)-:  -  :         •     :     •  t    :    -  ■•:-)■  t    -  t 

:  !^5?')^1  i<:?ipb^  b3  "  Kings  shall  not  cease  from  the 
house  of  Judah,  nor  scholars,  (or,  skilful)  teachers  of  the 
law,  from  his  children's  children,  until  the  time  that  king 
Messiah  comes,  whose  is  the  kingdom,  and  whom  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  earth  are  about  to  serve." 

The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  agrees  with  the  Hebrew,  ex- 
cept in  reading  J^li\  vbyi,  JlbtU.  "  The  sceptre  shall  not 
depart  from  Judah,  nor  one  that  gives  the  law  from  his  (lit- 
erally,/ro/?i  between  his,)  standards,  until  Tib^  comes,  and  to 
him  the  nations  shall  assemble."  ■ 

Syriac  version.     ]JLCg_CLLDO  .]50(ti»*    _^  1  ^ "^  *■    i  ^^^  "jJ 

.].'-nVi\  "  The  sceptre  shall  not  remove  from  Judah,  nor  an 
interpreter  from  between  his  feet,  until  he  comes  whose  it  is, 
and  for  him  will  the  nations  wait." 

To  this  view  of  the  most  important  versions,  I  add  a 
translation  of  the  commentary  of  Rashi,  and  the  principal 
portions  of  that  of  Aben  Ezra,  adhering  as  closely  to  the 
phraseology  of  these  writers,  as  the  English  idiom  will 
allow.      Rashi    comments  thus.     "  The  sceptre    shall    not 


CHAP,  xxxvii.l— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  373 

depart  from  Judah.     From  David  and  afterwards.     These 
are  the  heads  of  the  captivity  in  Babylonia,  who  rule  the 
people  with  the   sceptre,  who   are  governors  appointed  by 
royal  authority.     Nor  a  lawgiver  from   between  his  feet. 
These     are    scholars,   princes    of    Israel,  say  the    rabbins. 
Until  Shiloh  come.     King  Messiah,  whose  is  the  kingdom, 
lbl25,  and  thus  Onkelos.      But    the  Midrash  Agada,"  (old 
rabbinical   interpretation.)  "explains  it  by  15  ^125,  as    it    is 
'  said  :  !J^"n)2b  *©  "ib^m^  ('  let  them   bring  presents  to   him 
that  is  to   be  feared.'     Ps.  Ixxvi.  12.)     And  to  him  shall  the 
rmp^  of  the   people  be.      The  gathering   (JlS'Ci^)   of  the 
people :  for  the  i  is   radical."     [Then  follow  some  remarks 
on  radicals   and    serviles,  after  which   he   proceeds  thus.] 
"  d^)2>'  il^!p\  the  gathering  of  the  people,  as  it  is  said,  '  to 
him  shall  the  nations  seek,'   (Isa.  xi.   10;)  and  like  it,  (is 
Pro  v.    XXX.   17,)    '  the    eye    that    mocketh    its    father    and 
despiseth  the  gathering  of  its  mother,'  (inHp^b  Tlln^n,)  the 
collecting  of  wrinkles  on  her   face  before  her  old  age."  (!  !) 
He  then  refers  to  the  use  of  the  word  !lHp  in  the  Talmud. 
See  Buxtorf's  Lexicon,  col.  1983. 

Aben  Ezra.  "  The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah. 
The  sceptre,  great  men,  shall  not  depart  from  Judah,  until 
David  comes,  who  was  the  beginning  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah :'  (that  is,  as  Cartwright  explains  it,  the  first  king 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah.)  "  And  the  fact  was  so.  Is  it 
not  seen  that  the  standard  of  Judah  sets  out  first  ?  The 
Lord  says  indeed,  'let  Judah  go  up  first;'"  (referring  to 
Judo-,  i.  1,  2.)  "And  the  meaning  of  ppin^  is  scribe, 
because  A*?  writes  (plH^)  in  books:  and  the  sense  of 
between  his  feet  is"  (shown  from  this,)  "  that  it  was  the 
custom  of  every  scribe  to  sit  between  the  feet  of  the  elder. 

Shiloh:  some   say,  according  to  the   way  in  which  the 

Syriac  translator  explains  it,  that  it  is  of  the  same  import 


374  NOTES    TO    GENESIS,  [part   XI. 

as  "1  bt25."  [Ho  then  proceeds  to  give  some  other  views  ; 
such  as,  (1)  the  name  of  the  place  Shiloh,  i^li'^  being  used  for 
dechning,  as  it  is  appUed  to  the  sun  going  down,  and  thus 
the  meaning  will  be,  until  Shiloh  come  to  an  end  or  decline, 
referring  to  Ps.  Ixxviii.  60,  '  he  forsook  the  tabernacle  of 
*  Shiloh,'  after  which  it  follows  in  v.  70,  '  he  chose  David  his 
servant' ;  (2)  Hb^tT  for  "15^,  the  H  for  1  and  b^lU  in  the 
sense  of  otlspring,  from  embryo  or  second  birth.  flUpi  he 
explains  like  Rashi,  and  refers  to  the  authority  exercised 
by  David  and  Solomon.  He  remarks  also,  that  the  phrase 
until  does  not  imply  a  departure  of  the  sceptre  at  the  time 
contemplated;]  "but  its  meaning  is  like,  'bread  shall  not 
fail  to  such  an  one  until  the  time  comes  that  he  shall  have 
many  fields  and  vineyards' ;  like,  '  I  will  not  leave  thee, 
until  I  have  done  what  I  have  spoken  to  thee,'  that  is,  that 
he  would  bring  him  back  to  the  land."  (See  Gen.  xxviii.  15.) 
The  first  word  to  be  examined  in  this  passage  is  LOjIltp. 
Its  general  sense  is  that  of  i-od  or  staff ;  and  hence  it  is 
applied,  figuratively,  to  punishment,  correction,  and  to  a 
i^uhr  of  whose  office  it  was  the  badge.  It  is  used  also  for 
a  tribe.  Its  other  significations  have  no  bearing  on  its 
meaning  here.  It  cannot  be  employed  in  the  third  sense, 
for  it  would  be  exceedingly  frigid  to  say  that  a  tribe  should 
not  depart  from  itself.  Neither  can  the  word  tribe  be 
intended  to  express  the  characteristics  and  peculiarities  of 
a  tribe,  so  as  to  give  the  sense,  that  Judah  should  not  cease 
to  be  a  tribe,  should  not  lose  its  character  as  such,  until 
&c. ;  for  no  use  of  the  word  supports  such  a  signification. 
Some  Jews  of  comparatively  modern  date,  understand  it 
in  the  first  of  the  above  mentioned  senses,  and  explain  the 
declaration  thus ;  the  '  Jews  shall  be  an  afflicted  people,  and 
exposed  to  the  oppression  of  tyranny  until  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah.'      But  this  cannot  be  the  meanins :    for  the 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  375 

text  speaks  of  authority  resident  in  the  tribe  itself,  not  of 
foreign  control  ;  and  the  context  is  altogether  at  variance 
with  the  supposition  of  oppression.*  There  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt,  that  it  is  used  in  the  second  of  the  above 
senses.  1.  This  is  not  only  a  very  common  meaning  of 
'Dlntp)  but  the  whole  phrase  is  used  to  express  the  loss  of  a 
nation's  authority,  in  Zech.  x.  11.  I^D^  Q^"!^^  tO^tp",  'the 
sceptre  of  Egypt  shall  depart.'  2.  The  antithesis  with 
pjin??  requires  this  sense.  This  word  is  used  for  lawgiver 
in  Deut.  xxxiii.  21,  and  elsewhere,  and  the  antithesis  is 
sufficiently  preserved  by  translating  it  so  in  this  place.  I 
do  not,  therefore,  see  sufficient  reason  to  render  it,  with 
De  Wette  and  Gesenius,  staff  of  authority,  sceptre,  thus 
making  it  express  the  very  same  shade  of  meaning  as  10519  '■> 
for  although  this  is  often,  it  is  not  necessarily,  the  case  with 
Hebrew  parallelisms,  the  different  members  of  which  fre- 
quently mark  species  of  the  same  genus.  3.  The  con- 
text, which  speaks  of  Judah's  power  and  superiority,  will 
not  admit  any  other  sense;  and  lastly,  this  is  supported 
by  the  ancient  versions,  of  which  the  Septuagint  has  afx'-jv 

>3yi(x£vocr,  and  the  Vulgate,  sceptrum — dux. 

Tb^*l  l'^^''?-  Many  commentators  explain  this  phrase 
as  an  euphemism.  This  is  the  opinion  of  Rosenmiiller,  who 
refers  to  Deut.  xxviii.  57,  and  to  the  similar  phrase  in  Gen. 
xlvi.  26,  Ex.  i.  5,  Jud.  viii.  30  ;  and  this  is  the  idea  of  the 
Septuagint  and  Vulgate  versions  ;  sx  rwv  (ji^ri^uv  aurS-  de  femore 
ejus.  It  is  observable,  however,  that  the  first  of  the  places 
referred  to  speaks  of  the  female,  and  the  others,  although 
they  have  in  view  the  male,  use  the  word  tTT,  the  thigh. 
There  is  therefore  a  difference  in  the  texts,  and  they  cannot 
be  adduced   as  examples  of  analogous  expression,  although 

*  This  view  is  fully  refuted  by  Fagius,  Drusius,  and  Cartwright,  in 
the  Critici  Sacri,  Col.  1051,  1068,  1105. 


376  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

they  may  be  analogous  in  the  general  idea.  Gesenius, 
under  V'2  4,  c),  follows  the  Targums  :  "  from  the  seed, 
offspring,  posterity."  Ernesti  compares  the  phrase  with 
ix  -T^Iiv  'Xoduv  d'ffo;)^w«'/;(rojxsv,  USed  by  Plato,  and  ix  •^oS-Zv  dti^ovrai, 
by  Xenophon,  both  equivalent  to  e  medio  discedere  or  simply 
abire  of  the  Latins,  '  to  go  out,'  remarking  that  the  Hebrews 
were  accustomed  to  use  various  members  of  the  body  for 
the  whole  man.  See  Rosenmuller  in  loc.  Also  Hengsten- 
berg,  Christologie,  I.  p.  70,  Keith's  Translation,  p.  58.  To 
the  instances  there  given,  it  may  be  added,  that  we  say  in 
English,  '  I  received  at  your  hands,'  meaning  \from  you.' 
Whatever  may  be  the  idea  on  which  the  use  of  the  phrase 
is  founded,  there  can  be  no  doubt  respecting  its  general 
meaning,  which  is  equivalent  to //-ow  A //;«,  that  is,  the  tribe 
of  Judah. 

■^3  13?.  I  have  retained  the  meaning  which  is  usually 
given  to  this  phrase,  until,  because  this  is  the  only  meaning 
which  it  has  in  the  Bible.  It  is  used  but  four  times,  exclu- 
sive of  the  text :  Gen.  xxvi.  13,  xli,  49,  2  Sam.  xxiii.  10, 
2  Chron.  xxvi.  15.  Some  interpreters  translate  it  as  long 
as ;  and  this  is  the  version  of  Dathe,  who  thinks  that  the 
parallelism  is  not  given  with  sufficient  accuracy  by  until, 
as  this  verse,  like  the  next,  evidently  consists  of  two 
hemistichs,  the  clauses  of  which  correspond  with  each  other. 
His  translation  is   as  follows  :  "  Non  decrunt  reges  Judte, 

nee  legislatores. Quamdiu  prolem   habebit, ei 

gentes  obedient."  He  remarks  also  that  ^5'  and  "3  ^5? 
do  not  always  express  the  limits  of  time,  but  mark  also  its 
duration ;  and  that  by  giving  it  this  sense  here,  the  last 
hemistich,  like  the  first,  will  consist  of  two  corresponding 
members.  This  view  of  the  text  he  derived  from  Gulcher's 
explicatio  nova  et  facilis  loci.  Gen.  xlix.  10. — Although  it  be 
granted  that  Dathe's  version  does  place  the  parallelism  in  a 
stronger   light    than    the    ordinary  translation,    it  may  be 


CHAP,  xxxvil.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  377 

doubted  whether  this  circumstance  should  have  so  much 
weight  as  to  counterbalance  the  sense  in  which  "^3  ^^ 
is  always  used.  It  is  certain,  that  so  nice  an  adjustment 
of  the  parallel  clauses  as  is  frequently  to  be  met  with  in 
Hebrew  poetry  does  not  characterize  the  whole  of  this 
prophecy  of  Jacob,  and  therefore  need  not  be  required  in 
this  verse :  the  common  translation  exhibits  as  much  of  this 
quality  as  can  be  discovered  in  some  other  verses.  To  the 
objection  drawn  from  the  meaning  of  '^'2  ^?,  he  thinks  it 
sufficient  to  reply  with  Gulcher,  that  the  phrase  does  not 
occur  often  enough  to  admit  of  a  rule  being  founded  upon 
it,  and  that  ^5  appended  to  ^3^,  and  other  particles,  does 
not  alter  their  meaning :  hence  he  concludes  that  it  is 
nothing  more  than  an  expletive,  like  the  Greek  av. — What 
force  these  remarks  would  be  entitled  to,  if  the  usual  signi- 
fication of  ^3  1^  presented  an  insuperable  difficulty  in 
ascertaining  the  sense  of  the  clause,  it  is  unnecessary  to 
examine.  It  suits  the  passage  under  consideration  as  well 
as  the  others  in  which  it  is  found,  and  therefore  it  has  been 
adopted  by  all  the  ancient  versions.*  Some  modern  Jews 
have  endeavored  to  give  to  1?  the  meaning  of  forever. 
They  have  understood  the  text,  either  as  asserting  the 
perpetuity  of  Judah's  authority  when  the  Messiah  shall 
have  come,  (see  Fagius  in  loc.  Grit.  Sac.  p.  1052,)  or,  as 
declaring  that  the  want  of  authority  shall  not  be  permanent, 
because  he  is  to  come  to  restore  it  to  the  tribe.  See  David 
Levi's  Lingua  Sacra  in  "I5>.     The  word  13?  is  indeed  used 

*  The  Chaldee  of  Onkelos  need  not  he  considered  as  an  exception  to 
this  statement.  This  version  is  as  follows:  '^il"'.'?'^.""'^?  !i^^^^~'^^- 
i^n^tp^.  Here  ^il'^.'^T""!?  is  the  translation  of  i^'l"^-^!?  1!^,  and 
5}^^b^~1?,  is,  as  well  as  5^n'''ip)2,  added  by  the  interpreter,  and  in- 
tended perhaps  as  an  exegetical  paraphrase  r 
4S 


378  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

to  express  perpetuity,  but  never,  as  in  this  place,  followed  by 
^4)*,  and  generally  connected  with  some  adjunct,  as  for 
instance,  li'b,  13?  ^^2>,  1^1  t]bi5?!p  and  others.  Jf  Isa. 
Ivii.  15,  may  be  considered  as  an  exception,  the  meaning 
is  different,  and  the  place  maybe  rendered  adverbially,  thus  : 
'who  sits  (on  the  throne)  eternally.' — This  Jewish  interpre- 
tation, being  founded  altogether  on  difficulties  arising  out  of 
doctrinal  views,  may  be  passed  over  without  any  further 
remark. 

The  word  n^''tp,  which  is  next  to  be  examined,  has  given 
rise  to  more  discussion  than  any  other  in  the  prophecy. 
The  first  point  which  must  be  investigated  relates  to  the 
genuine  reading.  The  varieties  which  appear  in  manu- 
scripts are  Hb'^'©,  HbllJ,  "ib^tT,  ibtl? ;  the  two  last  occur  in 
but  few.  Jahn,  who  has  examined  this  subject  in  his  Ein- 
leitung,  Theil.  I.  §  148,  says,  that  the  oldest  testimony  in 
favor  of  the  reading  tlb'^tl'  is  the  Targum  of  the  Pseudo 
Jonathan,  which  is  not  of  higher  antiquity  than  the  seventh 
or  eighth  century ;  and  that  the  evidence  of  even  this  wit- 
ness is  doubtful,  inasmuch  as  his  translation,  "  the  least"  or 
"youngest  of  his  sons,"  is  too  vague  to  enable  us  to  deter- 
mine  whether  he  read  ilb'^ID  or  nbtlJ.  The  former,  how- 
ever, appears  in  most  Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  in  almost 
all  the  editions.  But  as  both  editions  and  manuscripts  are 
comparatively  modern,  other  authorities  more  ancient  must 

*  The  assertion  of  Levi  is  somewhat  extraordinary,  and  not  very 
critical,  that  "  according  to  the  common  translation,  and  -w  hich  all 
Christians  seem  to  have  adopted,  the  adverb  ^^,  because,  sinuds  fox  a 
cypher  in  the  text,  as  no  word  is  given  for  it."  AVould  he  require  every 
particle  in  a  Hebrew  phrase  to  have  a  correspondent  term  in  the  ver- 
nacular tongue?  ^^  IS?  is  the  phrase  for  until,  and  if  two  words  are 
required  to  express  its  meaning,  the  rather  melegant  phrase  u7itiL  thai 
will  meet  his  objection. 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  379 

be  examined.  1.  All  the  manuscripts  of  the  Samaritan 
text  read  nbll',  and  this  reading  is  preserved  in  the  Samari- 
tan version.  2.  The  Septuagint  translation,  to,  dnfoxsiij.sva 
dvTU),  according  to  some  copies,  with  which  Theodotion 
agrees,  and  fS  d*o'xsjTo  according  to  others,  with  which  Aquila 
and  Symmachus  coincide,  may  have  been  obtained  from 
tlblS  but  not  from  nb''t2J.  3.  These  Greek  readings  are 
supported' by  Justin  Martyr,  both  in  his  apology  and  dialogue 
with  Trypho,  and  also  by  Epiphanius  and  Theodoret.  4. 
The  translator  of  the  Peshito,  Onkelos,  and  the  author  of  the 
Jerusalem  Targum,  appear  to  have  read  HblD,  as  their  ver- 
sions are  a  paraphrase  of  this  word.  5.  In  the  former  part 
of  the  tenth  century  the  reading  rtb'^IT  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  known  in  Egypt  and  Babylon  and  the  adjacent 
countries  ;  for  the  Egyptian  Saadias,  the  Gaon,  who  was 
for  two  years  master  of  the  school  of  Babylon  or  Seleucia, 
translated  according  to  the  reading  HbtU.  Jahn,  from  whom 
chiefly  this  view  of  the  evidence  is  taken,  tells  us,  that  in  a 
manuscript  writing  at  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century 
ilDtlJ  is  found  as  a  correction ;  from  which  it  is  clear,  that 
some  standard  manuscripts,  (compare  his  Introduction,  P.  I. 
§  iii.  p.  131,  of  the  Translation,)  by  which  the  correctors  were 
governed,  contained  that  reading.  Others,  however,  of  the 
same  class,  read  Mb'^tiJ,  for  in  three  manuscripts  of  the 
thirteenth  century  it  is  a  correction  of  tibw,  and  in  another  of 
"litU.  Such  corrections  were  increased  about  this  period, 
and  in  the  fourteenth  century  the  reading  rib'^tl)  became 
pretty  common,  and  in  the  next  was  more  generally  ex- 
tended, among  manuscripts.  The  external  evidence  there- 
fore is  (he  thinks,)  decidedly  in  favor  of  nbtlJ,  and  this 
reading  is  as  well  sustained  by  "the  internal  as  the  other,  if 
not  better.  In  addition  to  Jahn,  as  above  referred  to,  see 
W.  F.  Hufnagel's  Versuch  iiber  1  Mos.  xlix.  10,  in  the  Re- 


380  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

portorium   fiir  Biblische    und  Morgenlandische    Litteratur, 
Theil  XIV.  p.  240—242. 

In  one  point  of  view,  the  insertion  of  the  yod   is  of  very 
little  consequence,  as  the  word  may  have  the  same   mean- 
ing without  as  it  has  with  it:  in  the  one   case,  it  will   be 
fully,  in   the    other  imperfectly  written  ;  ri''b'^t25  and  riD'S 
are  identical  in  meaning.     But,  in  another  point  of  view, 
the  introduction  of  the   yod  is  important,   as  an  interpre- 
tation which  the   word  may  bear  without  it,  could  not  be 
elicited,  if  it  were  written  with  the  yod  inserted.     Heng- 
stenbei'g  remarks,  that  "  the  defenders  of  the  interpretation" 
alluded  to  "  fall  into  an  error,  when  they  conclude,  from 
the  fact  that  the  old  translators  adopted  this  pointing,  that 
it  was  the  received  one  in  their  time."      He  supposes    it 
*'  most  likely,  that  they  found  the  present  pointing  of  the 
word  as  the  received  one,  but  felt  obliged  to  depart  from  it, 
because,  according  to  it,  they  could  give  to  the  word  no 
suitable    derivation,  while,  on  the    contrary,  the    pointing 
which  they  adapted,   (rt^ip,)  agreed    with  the    traditional 
reference  of  the  passage  to   the  Messiah."      Christology, 
Keith's   Translation,  p.  55.     He  admits,  then,  that  the  old 
translators   could  not  derive   the   meaning  which   tradition 
had   stamped  on  the    text,  without  assuming    the  reading 
which  Jahn  maintains  to  be  the  true  one.     Is  it  not  vastly 
more  probable,  that  this  was  actually  the  reading  which 
they  found  ?     The   meaning  which  this   reading  sanctions, 
Hengstenberg    allows   to    have  been    the  traditionary  one 
received  before  "  the  old  translators,"  in  other  words,  the 
authors  of  the  Targums  and  of  the  Septuagint,  lived.     Its 
very  high  antiquity,  therefore,  is  admitted.     If  the  reading 
lib"'t53  vvere  the  prevailing  one  before  the  times  of  these 
translators,  whence  arose  the  traditionary  meaning,  which 
induced  them  to  change  this  reading  into  tlbip,  in  order  to 
adapt  the  word  to  the  current  interpretation  ? 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES     TO    GENESIS.  381 

The  meaning  of  the  word  must  now  be  considered. 
1.  A  few  expositors  have  regarded  it  as  the  name  of  a 
place,  as  the  word  UDW  is   used  in  Judg.  xxi.  12,  1  Sam. 
iv.    12,  and   elsewhere,   and    have    translated    the    passage 
thus:  "until   he  come   to   Shiloli  f^  and   an   allusion  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  rt bllJ,  to  be  at  Test,  has  been   supposed 
to  be  intended.     The  meaning  will  then  be,  that  the  tribe  of 
Judah  should   enjoy  the  precedence  until  they  came  to  their 
rest  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  at  which   time  the   others   sepa- 
rated  from  this,  (which   had   previously  occupied   the   first 
rank   in  the   march,  Num.  x.  14,)  in  order  to   receive  their 
own  portion.     Against  this  interpretation,  it  is  sufficient  to 
remark,  that  it  is  altogether  too  feeble  for  the  elevated  pre- 
dictions of  the  context,  and  that  it  wants  coherence  with 
the  following  expressions.     Shiloh   being  a  city  within   the 
limits  of  Ephraim,  did  not  belong  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and 
the  connexion   between  it  and   the  authority  of  that  tribe,  is 
at  best  remote  and  incidental,  while  it  has  none  at  all  with 
the   obedience   of  the  nations,  which  is  immediately  after- 
wards predicted.     The  same  objections,  ,with  others  also, 
may  be  urged  against  the  exposition  of  Rabbi  Samuel,  the 
son  of  Meir,  which  is  given  by  Mendelsohn,  and  defended 
by  the  Dubnian  commentator  in  the  Jl b"lbD  1"^^.     "  Until 
he  come  to  Shiloh,  (ilb'''l25  for  nb'^lDb,  as  in   1  Chron.  xviii. 
7,  Jer.  xxiv.   1,  and  xxviii.  3,)    that  is  to   say,  until  there 
come  a  king  of  Judah,  Rehoboam  the  son  of  Solomon,  who 
came    to  renew  the  kingdom  of   Shiloh  which  is  near  to 
Shechem.     But  then  the   tribes  will  depart  from  him  and 
will  make  Jeroboam  king,  and  only  Judah  and  Benjamin 
shall  be  left  to  Rehoboam,  the  son  of  Solomon."     The  latter 
part  of  the  verse   he  explains  of  the  subjection  of  the  sur- 
rounding   nations    to    Solomon,  (1   Kings    iv.  24,)   and    of 
Israel's    flocking     to    Shechem    to    crown     Rehoboam  ; 
(2  Chron.  x.   1.)     To  prove  the  proximity  of  Shechem  to 


382  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  xi. 

Shiloh,  he  refers  to  Josh.  xxiv.  1,  26,  "the  sanctuary  of  the 
Lord"  mentioned  in  the  latter  text,  being  then  at  Shiloh,  as 
is  evident  from  Judges  xxi.  19,  and  Jer.  xli.  5. 

2.  Dathe,  with  other  critics  of  great  name,  compares 
nbtp  with  an  Arabic  word  denoting  the  membrane  which 
envelops  the  foetus,  and  then  explains  it  as  a  metonymy  for 
offspring,  referring  to  n"jbtl)  in  Deut,  xxviii,  57,  and  re- 
marking that  !5^^  is  used  in  relation  to  birth.  See  Ps.  Ixxi. 
18.  Thus  his  translation  is:  "  quamdiu  />roZe/?i  habebit." 
Concerning  this  interpretation  it  is  well  observed  by  Le 
Clerc,  that  it  is  a  conjecture  founded  on  no  firmer  basis  than 
the  slender  affinity  of  the  terms  embryo,  second  birth,  and 
offspring,  which  is  entirely  too  slight  to  support  it.  Besides, 
can  any  reason  be  given  why  this  word  should  be  em- 
ployed in  so  unusual  a  sense,  in  preference  to  "IS  or  5''1T» 
which  are  commonly  used  to  denote  posterity. 

3.  The  Vulgate  version  is,  donee  veniat  qui  mittendus  est. 
Jerome  »either  used  a  manuscript  which  contained  the  read- 
ing nbtli,  sent,  or  he  mistook  the  H  for  a  H.  The  latter 
supposition  is  th^  more  probable,  for,  as  Jahn  remarks 
ubi  sup.  p.  508,  this  might  easily  be  done,  owing  to  the 
similarity  of  the  letters,  the  smallness  of  the  characters  in 
his  copy,  and  the  weakness  of  his  eyes,  of  which  he  com- 
plains ;  and  because  he  has  actually  made  this  mistake  in 
Gen.  X.  24,  by  commuting  flbtfi  with  nbtlJ. 

4.  Rosenmiiller  considers  the  term  as  an  appellative  from 
nbtp,  to  be  at  rest,  analogous  to  ^iui''p  smoke,  from  ^'y[?, 
and  makes  it  equivalent  to  tranquility,  that  is,  the  author 
of  tranquility,  the  peace  maker,  like  LOitp'  sceptre,  for  he 
who  holds  it,  that  is,  the  ruler.  Thus  the  word  will  be 
synonymous  with  DlbtC  ^tP,  prince  of  peace,  in  Isa.  ix.  5, 
and  with  (11^D125,  Soloni07i,  that  is,  the  peaceable,  (see  1. 
Chron.  xxii.  9,)  to  whom  the  Samaritans  apply  the  pro- 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS,  383 

phecy.  Hengstenberg  adopts  this  view.  He  does  not 
hesitate  to  say,  that  "  every  thing  is  in  favor  of  this  interpre- 
tation, and  that  nothing  can  be  said  against  it."  Christology, 
I.  p.  67,  8.  But  I  think  it  involves  difficnhies  which  have 
never  been  satisfactorily  solved.  Whether  !lb"'tp  or  tlDtp 
will  bear  this  translation  is  somewhat  doubtful,  as  this  word 
is  never  used  for  tranquility,  but  ni-^ID.  That  other 
similar  forms  do  occur,  as  these  two  critics  show,  only 
proves  that  the  vvord  would  be  in  analogy  with  other  words 
really  existing;  it  by  no  means  proves  that  there  was 
such  a  word.  And  as  a  stale  of  peaceful  and  happy 
security  is  expressed  by  Qlbtl?,  (Gen,  xxviii.  21,)  and 
as  tOptl?  is  used  to  denote  the  enjoyment  of  such  a  state, 
(Judg.  viii.  28;)  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  why  a  term 
which  occurs  no  where  else  should  be  used  here  to  convey 
the  same  idea,  and  also  why  this  term,  once  employed  in 
this  sense,  should  never  have  been  used  by  subsequent 
writers,  particularly  by  Isaiah  in  the  place  referred  to.  It 
is  possible,  indeed,  that  the  word  may  contain  an  intended 
allusion  to  this  meaning,  and  thus  be  considered  as  a  sort 
of  paronomasia,  so  favorite  a  figure  with  the  Hebrew 
writers, 

5,  The  word  HbtU"  seems  to  be  a  term  compounded  of  the 
prefix  ID,  a  particle  from  "TipiJ^  and  equivalent  to  it,  mean- 
ing who,  and  tlD  for  TD  to  him;  that  is,  literally,  'who 
(there  is)  to  him,  he  to  whom,'  and  the  sentence  to  be 
elliptical  for — until  he  comes  whose  (it  is),  namely,  the 
authority  implied  in  the  word  sceptre  and  recognised  by 
the  expectation  of  those  to  whom  the  prophecy  was 
directed.  Thus  ibtU  will  be  equivalent  to  lb  ^12)!}<,  hterally, 
«  whom  to  him,'  and  1D~1'2l'i^  is  similar  to  ll^^^liiJ^  literally, 
'whom  in  thee,'  in  Isa.  xlix.  3.  This  does  appear  to  be  the 
view  in  which  Ezekiel  regarded  the  passage,  if,  as  seems 


384  NOTES    TO   GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

exceedingly  probable,  he  has  paraphrased  it  in  xxi.  32,  (27,) 
tD|tp?3n  ib-ntp^5:  ^2-^y  '  until  he  comes  to  whom  the 
right  belongs.'  Hengstenberg  allows  it  to  be  undeniable  "  that 
Ezekiel  had  this  passage  in  view  ;  but  there  is  no  objection, 
(he  thinks,)  to  understand  the  words,  '  he  whose  is  the 
dominion,'  as  a  paraphrase  of  Shiloh,  regarded  as  a  name 
of  the  Messiah,  according  to  the  interpretation"  just  con- 
sidered. It  cannot  indeed  be  denied  that  the  appellation 
*  peace'  or  '  peacemaker,'  is  not  at  variance  with  the  peri- 
phrasis, "  he  whose  is  the  dominion  ;"  for  (he  establishment 
of  peace  is  quite  consistent  with  the  idea  of  supremacy. 
Still  there  is  no  necessary  connexion  between  the  two,  and 
the  "paraphrase"  of  Ezekiel  could  be  no  more  than  an 
incidental  result  from  the  original  expression  of  Jacob. 
According  to  the  view  which  I  am  endeavoring  to  defend, 
"  the  traditionary  reference,"  which,  on  the  supposition  that 
the  common  punctuation  Sib'^tp  is  the  true  one,  was  inex- 
plicable to  the  "  old  translators,"  who,  therefore,  "  felt  obliged 
to  depart  from  it,"  and  to  adopt  the  reading  Hbtp,  is  as  old 
at  least  as  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  and  is  given  by  him  in  his 
paraphrase. 

The  objection  urged  against  this  analysis  of  the  word  is 
that  125  is  not  used  in  this  way  in  early  Hebrew  writings. 
To  this  it  may  be  replied,  that  it  is  so  used  in  Judg.  v.  7, 
'^yl)2j?tl5  '  that  I  arose' ;  in  Canticles  i.  7,  twice,  once  with  a 
ssegol  nin^tP  '  whom  (my  soul)  loveth,'  and  again  with  a 
patach  n!^|t2!)  '  for  why' ;  and  in  viii.  12,  '^btj?  '  which  is  mine.' 
Eccles.  i.  9,  affords  several  examples  of  this  usage :  ~T\)^ 

ri^iJ^i.t?"  jj^^n  nip_^sy?-n)3T  n^.ri^.tp  j^t^n  n^nip.   it  occurs 

also  in  Job  xix.  29  :  "  that  ye  may  know  "I'^'^tP  or  Vup  that 
(there  is)  a  judgment ;"  and  perhaps  in  Gen.  vi.  3,  d5tp!Zl. 
This  word  is  explained  in  the  old  versions  as  a  particle 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  385 

compounded  of  3  "^P  ^^^  ^"^j  meaning  'because,  in  that 
indeed,'  although  some  modern  critics  consider  it  as  the 
infinitive  Piel  of  ti^'©  or  rTStll)  to  err,  with  an  affix  and  a 
prefix.  See  Gesenius  in  'X^'d  ;  also  Rosenmiiller  and  Dathe 
in  loc,  the  former  of  whom  translates  it  *  dum  errare  eos 
facit  caro,'  and  the  latter,  '  propter  errores  suos.'  But  if  it 
were  certain  that  11!)  is  not  found  in  this  sense  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, it  would  not  follow  that  it  was  never  so  used  in 
Hebrew  writings  of  equal  antiquity,  but  only  that  it  was  not 
common.  It  is  remarked  by  Jahn,  that  it  is  by  no  means 
surprising  that  Jacob,  who  lived  so  long  in  Mesopotamia 
among  the  Syrians,  should  have  availed  himself  of  a  prefix 
which  corresponds  with  the  Aramasan  Daleth.  Hengsten- 
berg,  while  he  takes  notice  of  the  objection,  candidly  allows 
that  it  "  is  not  of  itself  sufficient ;"  but  he  remarks,  "  that 
the  supposed  ellipsis  is  so  unnatural  that  scarcely  an 
analogous  example  can  be  found."  p.  56.  The  weight  to 
be  attached  to  such  an  objection  as  this  depends  very  much 
on  individual  feeling.  I  can  only  express  my  surprise  that 
any  one  should  be  pressed  by  such  a  difficulty.  The 
ellipsis  is  merely  of  the  substantive  verb :  "  until  he  come, 
whom  (it  is)  to  him,"  is' the  literal  translation,  according  to 
the  view  under  consideration.  The  word  which  Ezekiel 
introduces  is  not  necessary  to  complete  the  sense ;  his 
paraphrase  only  makes  it  plainer,  and  this  accords  with 
prophetic  analogy.  The  use  of  tlD  for  lb  is  according  to 
the  orthography  of  n'^"'^  for  i"!'^^!',  and  li^^D  the  chethib 
for  ifT=lD  in  the  next  verse. 

This  view  of  the  word  nbtl)  is  sanctioned  by  the  ancient 
versions.  The  Greek,  di  d-toxsiro,  '  for  whom  it  is  reserved, 
or,  Ta  dtfojcsVsva  duroj,  '  the  things  reserved  for  him,'  supply  in 
part  the  ellipsis,  and  evidently  refer  to  some  person  or 
authority,  or  both,  expected  to  come  in  a  future  age.  To 
49 


38G  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  xi. 

the  same  purpose  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  which  is  still 
more  paraphrastic,  and  which  seems  to  have  had  in  view 
the  text  in  Ezekiel  :  "  until  the  Messiah  comes,  whose  is  the 
kingdom."  Thus  also  the  Syriac  and  other  oriental  ver- 
sions, which,  as  they  agree  with  the  Targum,  show  that 
this  last  phrase  is  not  a  Jewish  addition,  but  an  intended 
paraphrase    of  H^itp. 

Whether  this  analysis  of  the  word  be  well  founded  or 
not,  there  is  strong  reason  to  believe  that  the  passage  does 
relate  to  the  Messiah :  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  word 
employed  may  have  been  intended  to  allude  to  him  as  the 
author  of  peace  and  quiet  felicity.  This  is  merely  a  con- 
jecture ;  but  it  is  worthy  of  some  consideration,  as  in  this 
very  chapter  such  an  allusion  is  contained  in  the  nineteenth 
verse,  where  Gad,  15,  which  properly  signifies  'good 
luck,'  (see  the  Septuagint  Iv  7o-)(y]'m-  Gen.  xxx.  11,)  is  con- 
nected with  1^1!?,  '  a  troop,'  and  in  v.  29,  there  is  a 
paronomasia  of  ^T}T.,  *  shall  comfort,'  with  h5,  which 
means  '  rest.'*  To  use  the  language  of  Rosenmiiller : 
"  promittitur  itaque  tribui  Judse,  non  recessurum  ab  eo 
imperium,  donee  veniat  magnus  ille  princeps,  qui  extreme 
mundi  tevo  turbata  omnia  ad  paccm  et  tranquillitatem  sit 
revocaturus,  et  totius  orbis  terrarum  imperium  sit  suscep- 
turus." 

Such  a  view  of  this  text,  which  makes  it  a  prediction  of 
the  coming  Messiah,  coincides  with  the  patriarchal  history 
and  promises.  The  annunciation  made  in  paradise  of  "  a 
descendant  of  the  woman"  who  was  to  destroy  the  power 

*  Compare  Gesenius  under  "l^TiP"^,  which,  he  thinks,  may  "  imply 
an  allusion  to  the  signification  of  right,  uprightness,  contained  in  the 
root  lip"',"  while  he  supposes  it  "not  improbable,  that  it  was  a  dimi- 
nutive form  of  the  name  btSSltO^"     Robinson's  Translation,  p.  454. 


CHAP,  xixvii.  1— L.]  N0TE3    TO    GENESIS.  387 

of  the  devil,  the  frequent  repetition  of  the  promise  to 
Abraham,  that  in  his  posterity  "  all  nations  should  be 
blessed,"  are  entirely  in  unison  with  this  interpretation  of 
Jacob's  much  celebrated  prophecy.  And  the  imperfect 
knowledge  which  at  that  period  existed  of  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  will  account  for  the 
obscurity  and  apparent  indefiniteness  of  the  term  under 
which  he  is  represented.  In  this  declaration,  then,  the 
authority  of  government  and  legislation  is  promised  to  the 
tribe  of  Judah  until  the  coming  of  the  Messiah :  and, 
although  the  Israelites  ceased  to  be  a  distinct  nation  at  the 
time  of  the  Assyrian  captivity,  yet  the  Jews,  who  were  the 
descendants  of  that  tribe,  continued  with  occasional  inter- 
ruptions and  oppressions  to  enjoy  their  own  government 
until  the  coming  of  Jesus  Christ.  Then  indeed  the  sceptre 
did  not  depart,  although  the  visible  and  secular  rule  soon 
became  extinct;  it  was  made  permanent  in  his  person, 
agreeably  to  the  idea  illustrated  by  Aben  Ezra,  as  before 
cited.*  "  His  kingdom  is  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  of 
his  dominion  there  shall  be  no  end." 

It  has  been  supposed  by  Eusebius  and  other  very 
respectable  writers,  that  "  the  sceptre  departed  from  Judah" 
on  the  accession  of  Herod,  who  is  called  "  a  foreigner,"  and 
who  was  not  of  Jewish  extraction.  But  the  fact  does  not 
warrant  the  conclusion.  The  Jewish  nation  still  retained 
the  right  of  self-government.  The  exercise  of  the  sceptre 
was  indeed  restricted,  but  not  taken  away.  Herod's 
government  was  Jewish  government,  and  was  regulated  by 
Jewish  laws.  As  well  might  it  be  said,  that  the  Roman 
power  ceased  whenever  some  foreign  adventurer  succeeded 
in  mounting  the  throne  of  the  Caesars ;  or  that  the  sceptre 

*  Hengstenberg  defends  this  view.     See  p.  59. 


388  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

departed  from  the  French  nation,  when  the  Corsican 
became  their  emperor.  The  civil  rights  of  the  Jewish 
people  were  controlled  by  the  influence  of  the  Romans,  but 
they  were  not  entirely  taken  away  until  the  overthrow  of 
the  nation.  Vitringa  has  written  a  very  satisfactory  dis- 
sertation on  this  subject  in  his  Observationes  Sacree,  Lib.  IV. 
cap.  v.  vii.  p.  934-960. 

J  t3'^?23'  Sinpl  ibl.  The  Septuagint  has,  xai  dvros  if^od^oxia. 
ISvGJv,  which  is  followed  by  the  Vulgate,  '  et  ipse  erit  expec- 
tatio  gentium.'  To  the  same  purpose  the  Syriac  version. 
The  translators  seem  to  have  taken  the  word  as  a  derivative 
from  rilj!^,  which  in  Piel  means  *  to  expect.'  Perhaps  the 
reading  in  their  copies  was  obtained  from  that  root. — Others 
render  t^tlJ?^  '  congregatio,'  "  gathering,"  after  the  Samari- 
tan, which  reads  "itinp'^,  and  which  the  Samaritan  transla- 
tion explains  by  "^Tlt^irT^,  '  shall  place  themselves  (shall 
stand,)  before.'  This  is  also  the  translation  of  Rashi,  as  I 
have  before  shown. — Most  probably  it  is  derived  from  an 
Arabic  root,  meaning  '  to  obey,'  and  signifies  obedience.  This 
sense  suits  the  only  other  place  in  which  the  word  occurs  in 
Scripture,  Pro  v.  xxx.  17.  It  is  the  interpretation  of  the 
best  critics,  and  is  supported  by  the  Chaldee  of  Onkelos, 
b^^)3)25?  ^^:5>)p?l^'l  rl^bl  '  and  him  shall  the  nations  obey.' 

11.  l^sHi^  ^5!?  rij^liubl  riTi?  ^^^b  ^yo^.  'He  fastens 
to  the  vine  his  ass's  foal,  and  to  the  choice  vine  the  son  of 
his  ass.'  ^"ibi^  is  poetical  for  1tDi<,  the  "^  being  paragogic- 
Thus  also  in  "^55,  which  the  Vulgate  has  considered  as  a 
pronominal  suffix,  translating  "  o  fill  mi."  ?lj^1t2)  is  the 
same  as  p'l.t2l'  in  Isa.  v.  2,  a  very  superior  species  of  vine, 
which  is  called  at  the  present  day  in  Morocco  set^ki.  The 
extraordinary  fertility  of  Judah's  portion  in  the  promised 
land  is  here  announced  :  vines  of  the  finest  sort  shall  be  so 
common  that  travellers  shall  use  them  for  hedges  and  fences 


CHAP,  xxxvu.  1-L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESI3.  389 

to  fasten  their  asses  to.— The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the 
next  clause  in  language  highly  figurative  and  poetical :  '  He 
washes  in  wine  his  garments  and  in  the  blood  of  grapes  his 
vesture.'     fl^O  is  derived  by  Aben  Ezra  from   the   same 
source  as  T]^m  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  33,  34,  35,  a  veil,  covering, 
and  made  equivalent  to  it.     But  it  is  generally  considered 
as  imperfectly  written  by  an  aphajresis  for  Jl^D5,  as  the 
full  reading  occurs  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.     Although 
no  instance  can  be  produced  of  the  elision  of  D,  yet  ^t}  for 
IdP,  np  for  np.b,  are  thought  to  be  analogous  examples.  See 
Gesenius  in  verb,  and  de  Pent.  Sam.  p.  33.     He  is  mistaken, 
however,  in  ascribing  this  view  of  the  word  to  the  Jewish 
commentator  above  named.     "  Ita  Aben  Esra,  qui  scribit : 
DD  "lOm    initiD  1)3D   nJniO."     it  is  true  he  does  so  write, 
but  he  introduces  the  remark  with  the  words,  tSS^I  (that  is, 
rn^i^  ^^l)  J^ltltD,  '  some  say  that  it  is  ;'  and  immediately 
adds,  mQ)2  '^n)2  'in^  ^5^5?1  "(l^lDm  'but  it  is  clear  to  me 
that  it  is  from  the  same  source  as    mD)2.' 

12.  :  ^"^^ril^  D'^5t2?-^5^^  V"^-  ^'^-'^-  '^'^^n.    'Sparkling 
are  his  eyes  with  wine,  and  white  are  his  teeth  with  milk.' 
Although  rr^T^  tl^b^b^n  is  used  in  reference  to  an  intem- 
perate use  of  wine,  (see  Prov.  xxiii.  29,)  yet  it  is  unnecessary, 
and  would  be  at  variance  with  the  nature  of  the  subject,  to 
extend  the  meaning  of  the  word  here  any  further  than  to 
denote  abundance.     Compare  the  use  of  ^^XO  in  Gen.  xliii. 
34.     Profusion  of  wine  and  milk  seems  plainly  to  be  the 
idea  conveyed,  and  this  is  closely  connected  with  the  former 
verse.— The  Septuagint,  xa^o^o'O'  ^'  o^^aV"'  ^^''^^  ^'^H  ^'^°^'  """■' 
XsuxS.  5.  55o'vTsc;  durS  ^  yaXa,  followed  by  the  Vulgate,  '  pulchri- 
ores  sunt  oculi  ejus  vino,  et  dentes  ejus  lacte  candidiores, 
more  joyous  are  his  eyes  than  wine,  and  whiter  his  teeth 
than  milk,'  is  beautifully  expressive  of  the  felicitous  condi- 


390  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  xi. 

tion  of  Judah.  Saadias  gives  the  same  version.  Whiter 
than  milk,  is  also  a  proverbial  expression.  See  Drusius  in 
loc,  notae  majores.  But  the  other  translation  is  probably 
more  correct,  as  it  suits  the  context  rather  better,  which 
plainly  gives  the  idea  of  great  plenty. 

13.  iii^T.i  ^"^P^  CjinJ)  Js^s^ni  'jpp-'"  s^'^i  qln!)  "jb^nr 

J  1"T^5~i'3'.  *  Zebulon  will  dwell  on  the  sea  coast,  a  coast 
well  lined  with  ships,  his  territories  reach  unto  Zidon.'  In 
our  English  translation  CjiH  is  rendered  "  haven."  Its 
general  meaning  is  undoubtedly  coast  or  shore,  or  side,  and 
so  it  is  constantly  translated.  See  Deut.  i.  7,  Josh.  ix.  1,' 
Judg.  V.  17,  Jer.  xlvii.  7,  Ezek.  xxv.  16;  which,  exclusive 
of  the  text,  are  the  only  places  in  which  the  word  occurs. 
Dathe  thinks  it  should  have  the  meaning  of  haven  in  the 
second  clause  of  the  verse  ;  but  as  Rosenmiiller's  interpreta- 
tion is  simple  and  easy,  and  retains  the  usual  sense  of  the 
word,  I  have  adopted  it  in  the  preceding  translation.  "  Erit 
ipse  ad  littus  navium,  id  est,  habitabit  ad  littus  semper  navibus 
frequens.  Ixx.  xi'a  duroj  *a^'  o^jutov  "ffXoiojv."  The  country  of  Ze- 
bulon extended  from  the  sea  of  Tiberias  to  the  Mediterra- 
nean, and  along  the  latter  as  far  as  Zidon,  that  is,  according 
to  Bochart,  to  Phoenicia.  See  his  Phaleg,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  34. 
p.  302. 

14.  :  Q^nstr)?2n  v^  Ti"i  Q'ns  n^sn  n:D©tr)\  'issachar 

is  a  strong  ass,  lying  down  within  his  borders.'  Thus  Ho- 
mer compares  Ajax  to  an  ass, 

*Jlj  ^'  ot'  ovoj  *«!''  oL^a^av  \uvsl3ir}(faro  t(on8a.g 

'Nu'hrjg, 'Qs  tot'  IVsit'  'Aiavra  jas'yav  xai  ra  a. 

II.  xi.  557,  562.  Cowper's  translation,  672  ss.  The  chief 
difficulty  in  the  verse  lies  in  the  word  D'^'ilSllplO.  The 
Septuagint  translates  it  xX^^oi,  the  Vulgate  termini,  and  the 
Chaldee  of  Onkelos  i^'^^S^Htl,  *  boundaries,  borders.'  Thus  it 
would  be  a  regular  derivative  from  ^iSp,  *  to  place.'  Many  of 


CHAP,  xxxvn.  1 — L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  391 

the  modern  commentators,  following  Michaelis,  derive  it  from 
the  Arabic  word  J!Ju»j,  and  explain  it  by  '  water  troughs' 
or  *  canals  for  cattle.'  Thus  Dathe  and  De  Wette.  But 
Gesenius  remarks  that  the  "  root  is  not  used  of  every  kind  of 
drink,  but  only  of  such  as  is  hurtful,  which  does  not  quench 
thirst  but  augments  it."  Consequently  it  is  not  admissible 
to  derive  the  Hebrew  word  from  it.  Rosenmiiller  also  says 
that  the  Arabians  use  it  in  reference  to  unwholesome  food, 
both  meat  and  drink.  He  follows  the  old  versions,  and  in- 
terprets the  word  of  the  two  borders  by  which  one  part  of  a 
field  or  country  is  separated  from  another  adjacent  to  it. 
This  is  probably  the  best  course  to  be  pursued  by  an  inter- 
preter, when  the  data  for  ascertaining  the  signification  of  a 
term  are  so  imperfect. — The  whole  verse,  he  thinks,  express- 
es the  servile  character  of  the  tribe,  and  their  quiet  enjoy- 
ment of  their  own  district,  as  well  as  their  attachment  to 
agricultural  pursuits.  This  is  plainly  supported  by  the  next 
verse. 

16, 17.  :  bs5ii£)^.  ''tpitri  nni^s  I725?  "^^t  "jt   *Dan  win 

rule  his  people  like  one  of  the  tribes  of  Israel ;'  that  is,  he 
will  maintain  his  rank  among  them.  There  is  a  pa- 
ronomasia in  the  first  two  words,  which  a  translation 
cannot  express.  The  common  English  translation  of  1^1, 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  of  x^i'vsiv  in  the  New,  is  '  to  judge,' 
which  in  some  cases  is  a  very  proper  term.  But  as  these 
words  are  frequently  used  in  the  sense  of '  governing,  ruling,' 
as  is  also  the  corresponding  word  tOStp,  (see  1  Sam.  ii.  10, 
viii.  5 ;  Isa.  xl.  23,)  I  have  preferred  the  more  general  ex- 
pression. The  sentiment  expressed  in  the  verse  appears  to 
be  this,  that  Dan  will  be  as  able  as  any  other  of  the  tribes 
to  advance  his  own  interests  and  to  govern  himself  by  his 
own  magistrates.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  with  On- 
kelos  that  a  direct  reference  to  Samson  is  intended ;  the 


392  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [paut  xi. 

tribe  in  general  seems  to  be  thus  characterized.  So  also  in 
the  next  verse,  the  craft  of  the  Danites  and  their  destruction 
of  their  enemies,  are  expressed  by  the  metaphor  of  a  serpent 
lying  in  the  path,  striking  with  its  poisonous  fang  the  heel  of 
the  unsuspecting  horse,  and  causing  him,  through  the  pain 
occasioned  by  the  bite,  to  throw  his  rider  in  the  dust.  Comp. 
Judg.  xviii.  27,  28.  The  Septuagint  renders  iS^Sip  by 
syxa'^riiisvog. 

18.  No  view  of  this  clause  seems  more  probable  than 
that  suggested  by  Herder  and  adopted  by  Dathe.  The  pa- 
triarch, while  he  is  uttering  these  predictions  respecting  the 
character  and  situation  of  the  tribe  of  Dan,  recollects  with 
feelings  of  devout  gratitude  the  many  difficulties  and  con- 
cealed dangers  from  which  the  Almighty  had  delivered  him, 
and  expresses  his  confidence  in  the  divine  protection,  in  the 
deliverance  of  his  descendants  from  dangers  and  hostile  at- 
tacks, and  perhaps  in  the  future  spiritual  deliverance  which 
he  had  before  predicted.  The  language  is  comprehensive, 
and  admits  of  a  wide  application.  The  extraordinary  good- 
ness of  God,  which  Jacob  had  so  often  experienced,  was 
well  adapted  to  give  him  composure  and  elevation  of  mind 
in  his  dying  moments ;  and  equally  so  to  raise  the  hopes  of 
his  posterity  under  any  trying  circumstances  in  which  they 
might  afterwards  be  placed,  and  to  keep  alive  their  faith  in 
the  future  coming  of  the  great  deliverer. 

19.  :  lf?.2?  "13^^  t^^ri-)  ^S^^ti^  mi^  15.  'Gad— a  troop 
may  press  upon  him,  but  he  shall  press  in  the  end.'  Thus  I 
have  rendered  ^jp^,  following  Rosenmullcr.  He  prefers 
this  meaning  on  the  authority  of  Aben  Ezra,  whose  interpre- 
tation is  ri5l"in&^!n  l5n:25''  Ji^ini, '  but  he  slmll  overcome  it 
in  the  end,'  or  'afterwards;'  and  the  Arabic  of  Erpcnius. 
Dathe  and  Gesenius  think  it  means  '  the  rear,'  and  the  latter 
refers  to  Josh.  viii.  13.  This  signification  has  the  support 
of  the  Arabic  of  Saadias.     The  sense  will  then  be,  that  God 


CHAP.  Xxxvn.l-L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  393 

shall  put  his  foes  to  flight,  and  drive  them  before  him ;  oi" 
else,  that,  although  his  enemies  may  press  him,  he  shall  rout 
their  rear.     It  is  not  easy  to  say  which  of  the  two  interpre- 
tations is  correct ;  the  former  is  perhaps  the  more  probable. 
The   paronomasia  which  runs   through   the  verse  is  very 
striking,  and  "^^5  seems  to  have  been  selected  on  account 
of  its  alliteration  with  15,  not  that  the  words  are   synony- 
mous, for  the  latter,  as  was  before  remarked,  signifies  'good 
luck.'     "I^i:^,  which  is  translated  "  troop,'  does  not  appear 
to  mean  an  army  fully  supplied  and  properly  drawn  up,  but 
rather  a  band  of  warriors  accustomed  to  predatory  incur- 
sions.    See   2   Kings,  v.  2;  Hos.  vii.   1.     The   Septuagint 
version  is :     TokJ,  ifsi^arii^m  lisi^msodsi   aurov,  ctuToff  6z  ifSi^aTSodsi 
duTov  xara  ifoSocg,  where  'r(siPaTr,^m  is  used  for  a  band  of  rob- 
bers, tfJ^>ifj^a  XTirfTwv,  as  Hippolytus  explains  it.     See  Schleus- 
ner's  Thesaurus  in  verb,  and  RosenmuUer  in  loc.     SchneideH 
and  Passow,  in  their  Greek  Lexicons,  give  the  sense  of  a 
company  of  pirates,  and  the  former  refers  to  Heliodorus  in 
defence  of  this  meaning. 

iJO.  This  verse  expresses  nothing  more  than  the  fertility 
of  Asher's  soil  and  the  abundance  and  excellence  of  its  pro- 
ductions.    Compare  Deut.  xxxiii.  24. 

21.  n3'i?-^"]^5;5  liTiSn  nnbtp  nb^^?;  ■'b?l35.  •Naphthali 
is  a  hind  let  loose  ;  he  giveth  discourses  of  beauty.'  Bochart, 
in  his  Hierozoicon,  P.  I.  Lib.  III.  cap.  18,  p.  896,  proposed 
another  interpretation  of  this  verse,  and  it  has  been  adopted 
by  several  modern  critics,  among  whom  are  Dathe  and 
De  Wette.  His  version  is  this :  '  Naphthali  is  a  spreading 
tree,  (or  terebinth,)  which  puts  forth  beautiful  branches.' 
The  metaphor,  as  denoting  prosperity  in  general,  is  too  fre- 
quent to  require  illustration.  This  translation  is  favored  by 
the  parallelism,  and  has  the  sanction  of  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion :  Nstp^aX;  (fTiXsx^s  avsifXe'vov,  £*iOi(5ig  sv  rc-J  yswr^ixaTi  xaXXog. 
It  requires  us  to  read  T^^^,  (the  Jod  may  be  retained,  as  in 
50 


S94  NOTKS    TO    GENESIS.  [riRT  XI. 

the  plural  u'^i^'^^,  Isa.  i.  29,  although  the  common  form  of 
the  shigular  is  n^^,)  or  the  construct  ilp'^S;^,  and  to  alter  the 
punctuation  of  "^^.'^i^  so  as  to  read  "''^I'-^v  The  meaning, 
as  exhibited  by  tlie  present  Rabbinical  punctuation,  is  given 
in  the  English  translation:  "Naphthali  is  a  hind  let  loose ;  he 
giveth  goodly  words."  Robertson,  in  his  Clavis  Pentatcu- 
chi,  who  adheres  to  this  interpretation,  remarks,  that  this 
tribe  may  be  compared  to  a  hind  on  account  of  its  extraor- 
dinary increase,  and  its  situation  in  rocky,  mountainous  dis- 
tricts. Whether  the  descendants  of  Naphthali  were  so  nu- 
merous as  to  sanction  his  first  observation,  may  be  doubted. 
Certainly  Deut.  xxxiii.  2.3,  to  which  he  appeals,  is  of  too 
general  a  nature  to  justify  such  a  representation ;  and  al- 
though, as  he  says,  the  country  about  Gallilee  was  exceed- 
ingly populous,  so  also,  it  may  be  replied,  was  the  whole 
country  of  Palestine.  See  Num.  i.  42,  43,  from  which,  in 
connexion  with  the  rest  of  the  chapter,  it  does  not  appear 
that  this  tribe  v/as  particularly  numerous  in  comparison  with 
the  others.  If  this  meaning  be  the  correct  one,  I  should 
rather  think  that  the  stateliness  and  beauty  of  the  gazelle,  so 
celebrated  among  the  eastern  poets,  constitute  the  point  of 
comparison.  The  prediction  will  then  be,  that  Naphthali 
shall  be  a  noble  and  lovely  tribe  among  the  others,  a  race  of 
princes  worthy  of  being  celebrated.  This  coincides  with 
the  sentiment  expressed  in  the  next  clause,  which  is  not  very 
intelligible  in  the  common  version,  and  which  is  well  ex- 
plained by  the  same  author  thus :  "  he  affords  materials  for 
joyful  hymns."  "^^!S5,  which  properly  means  '  word,  dis- 
course,' may  express  the  subject  of  such  discourse,  whether 
it  be  poetic  or  not;  as  in  Job  xxxv.  10,  the  term  "songs"  is 
equivalent  to  'subjects  to  sing  of;'  and  in  Ps.  Ixix.  13,  (12,) 
"  I  was  the  song  of  the  drunkards,"  means,  I  was  the  subject 
of  their  idle  mirth.  According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  the 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  395 

figure  is  of  the  same  class  as  those  used  of  Judah  and  Issa- 
char.  According  to  Bochart's  interpretation,  it  is  of  the 
same  kind  as  that  under  which  Joseph  is  represented  in  the 
following  verses,  and  it  is  beautifully  sustained  in  the  latter 
hemistich.  But  as  his  version  requires  a  change  of  the  punc- 
tuation, and  assigns  to  the  word  """l^!!^  a  meaning  which  is  not 
sufficiently  supported  by  the  only  two  places  in  which  "T^^Si^ 
occurs,  (Isa.  xvii.  G,  9,)  I  thought  it  best  to  retain  the  old 
translation.  The  objection  which  has  been  urged,  that  the 
latter  part  of  the  verse  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  figure  con- 
tained in  the  former,  is  at  best  only  rhetorical.  The  author 
may  leave  the  metaphor  with  which  he  began,  and  speak  of 
the  tribe  itself.  It  is  not  uncommon  for  one  member  of  a 
parallelism  to  consist  of  figurative  language,  and  another  of 
proper  terras.  All  the  most  important  views  of  this  passage 
may  be  found  in  Rosenmiiller's  note. 

22.  mi>;2  t\-i^   ]i^r^T^:   ^1^  ]^  R5V  rins  in 

J  1^\'Td!~'^  ^y.  '  A  fruitful  scion  is  Joseph,  a  fruitful  scion  at  a 
well,  the  branches  shoot  over  the  wall.'  The  Hebrew  is 
literally,  '  a  son  of  a  fruitful  (tree),'  or,  '  a  son  of  a  branch  ;' 
and  is  so  rendered  by  De  Wette  :  "  Sohn  eines  fruchtbaren 
Baums."  The  phraseology  is  evidently  in  the  usual  style 
of  Hebrew  poetry,  and  I  should  prefer  retaining  it,  were  it 
not  for  the  word  fllDlZl  in  the  next  hemistich,  which  ought 
then  to  be  translated  '  daus^hters.'  But  this  would  not  be 
allowable  in  our  language,  even  in  poetry,  and  the  writer 
just  mentioned  renders  it  "  Sprossen,  sprouts,  branches." 
Jacob  begins  the  blessing  of  Joseph  in  language  which 
alludes  to  the  signification  of  his  name,  viz.  'addition, 
increase.'  See  Gen.  xxx.  24.  He  compares  his  son  to  a 
branch,  or  scion,  or  tree,  growing  alongside  of  a  well  or 
fountain,  and  putting  forth  new  and  plentiful  shoots.  Dathe 
supposes    iT13    to    be    used   for    STliS'S,  (the   quiescent    2J^ 


396  NOTES    TO    GEiNESIS. 


[part   XI. 


being  omitted,)  '  a  branch.'  See  Ezek.  xvii.  G,  xxxi.  5,  6, 
12.  Rosenmiiller  explains  the  masculine  15  by  ramus, 
and  says  that  it  is  connected  with  the  feminine  adjective 
ln"jS,  in  consequence  of  the  meaning  of  the  synonymous 
term  tTIJ^'S.  The  grammatical  construction,  he  remarks, 
suits  the  sense,  not  the  word,  as  in  Judg.  xviii.  7,  where 
D^n  is  connected  with  fllH'IiP'l'',  because  it  expresses  the 
idea  of  society,  rTlin.  His  translation  is  :  "filius  fructifer, 
a  fruit-bearing  son  is  Joseph,  &c."  Such  usage  is  not  at  all 
uncommon,  but  whether  it  is  necessary  to  resort  to  it  in  the 
present  instance  is  far  from  being  certain,  tliii  may  be 
used  as  the  participle  for  H^iS  or  tTi3,  '  fruit-bearing, 
fruitful,'  as  Kimchi  has  remarked.  See  Buxtort's  Thes. 
Gram.  Lib.  I.  cap.  49.  p.  265,  Basil  edition,  1629. 
The  clause  will  then  stand  thus:  'a  son  of  a  fruitful,' 
(meaning  tree  or  vine,  or  something  equivalent,)  or  else, 
(taking  '  fruitful'  as  the  concrete  for  the  abstract,)  '  a  son  of 
fertility,'  that  is,  by  a  common  Hebraism,  '  an  abundantly 
fruitful  plant  or  branch  is  Joseph.'  Rosenmiiller  objects, 
that  if  it  be  taken  in  the  construct  state  it  ought  to  be  l^l, 
with  a  sajgol,  but  this  only  shows  that  the  Masorets  did  not 
understand  it  in  the  construct ;  and  how  easily  the  lower 
dot  of  the  soBgol  might  be  obliterated  in  some  manuscript, 
needs  no  proof.  tllDi  literally  means  'daughters,'  as  the 
branches  of  the  growing  scion,  the  I!]!  of  the  former  clause, 
are  elegantly  denominated  ;  or,  if  the  author  has  the  vine 
in  view,  its  tendrils,  creeping  up  the  walls.  The  vine  is 
used  as  an  image  of  fecundity.  See  Ps.  cxxviii.  3.  The 
plural  is  joined  to  the  singular  verb  ^T^?!^  distributively,  as 
if  it  had  been  said,  each  one  shoots  over. — The  Septuagint 
version  of  this  verse  is  as  follows  :  'Tioc:  riu^vi^asvoj  lui(i-l](^,  iiog 
T^v^Yj^ivos  jXi:    (^r;Xo)To^,  biog  /;.s   vsCwuTog-   if^og,    (jls  ava.dT^s-^^o'v.      It   is 


CHAP,  xxxvii.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  397 

plain,  that  the  translators  used  a  copy  with  a  different  read- 
ing from  the  present  Masoretical.  See  Schleusner,  ubi  sup. 
under  ^^iXwtoc:  and  vs^jraro^.  In  part,  the  Septuagint  coincides 
with  the  Samaritan.     See  Dathe's  note. 

23.  The  meaning  of  this  verse  is  very  clear.  It  refers  to 
the  animosity  which  Joseph's  brethren  had  cherished,  and 
the  hostile  conduct  which  they  had  pursued  towards  him. 
The  figure  is  changed,  and  they  are  represented  as  archers 
shooting  at  their  enemy  with  the  fixed  purpose  of  de- 
stroying him.  For  the  meaning  of  ^lzi"l,  see  Rosenmiiller 
in  loc. 

24.  i^ltpp  ]^'^^^  ^tPvll.  'But  his  bow  continued  strong; 
literally,  in  strength,  the  adjective  Itl'^ii^  being  used  as  a 
noun.' — VT  '^3'"lT  173^1,  '  and  his  arms  were  active.' 
Rosenmiiller  considers  VT  '^5'"lT  as  equivalent  to  V^^^T, 
his  arms,  the  latter  word  being  redundant.  Others  suppose 
'^i'lT  to  be  used  figuratively  for  might.  Thus  Gesenius  : 
"  the  power  (might)  of  his  hands."  But  in  all  the  instances 
cited  by  him,  except  Job  xxii.  9,  Ps.  xxxvii.  17,  and  Dan. 
xi.  15,  22,  31,  the  word  is  singular,  and  it  is  this  form  which 
is  usually  employed  in  this  metaphorical  sense,  and  there- 
fore I  have  preferred  following  Rosenmiiller.  Perhaps  too 
it  may  be  worth  noting,  that  in  the  excepted  places  more 
than  one  individual,  a  class  of  persons,  is  referred  to.  The 
word  TT3  occurs  also  in  2  Sam.  vi.  16,  and  in  both  these 
places   seems   to   convey  the   idea  of  the   cognate  Arabic 

word,   yi  '  to  be   light,  nimble,  active.'     See   Dathe  in  loc. 

and  Schultens'    Opera  Minora,  p.  132—135.     1^!?^^  ^"I^^ 

:  bSi^nip-i  -j^^  f1?^  t]l|)2  "i^T.-  '  By  the  hands  of  the 
mighty  one  of  Jacob,  by  the  power  (name)  of  the  shepherd, 
the  stone  (rock)  of  Israel.'  There  is  great  difficulty  in 
settling  the  connexion  and  meaning  of  this  and  the  following 


398  XOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part   xi." 

clauses.  De  Wette  completes  a  period  with  VT^,  (which 
is  sanctioned  by  the  accent  Athnach,)  and  translates  the 
remainder  of  this  verse,  and  the  twenty-fifth,  thus : 

Aus  der  Hand  des  gewaltigen  Jakobs, 

A^om  Fiihrer,  vom  Felsen  Israels, 
25.  Yom  Gott  deines  Yaters,  er  half  dir, 

Yom  Allmachtigen,  er  segnete  dich, 
Komme  dir  Segen  des  Himmels  von  obenher, 

Segen  der  Tiefe  unten, 
Segen  der  Briiste  und  des  Mutterleibs  ! 

By  the  hand  of  the  powerful  Jacob, 

From  the  leader,  from  the  rock  of  Israel, 
25.  From  the  God  of  thy  father,  he  helped  thee, 
From  the  Almighty,  he  blessed  thee, 

Come  to  thee  blessings  of  the  heaven  from  above. 
Blessings  of  the  deep  below, 

Blessings  of  the  breasts  and  of  the  womb  ! 

Dathe  connects  the  remainder  of  the  twenty-fourth  verse 
with  the  preceding  clause,  and  for  il"^^,  '  from  thence,'  he 
%vould  read  u"l"2,  '  from  the  name,'  corresponding  with 
'1^^'?,  and  supported  by  the  Syriac  version,  >5.a.  ,JiCO. 
He  supposes  the  patriarch  to  refer  to  the  history  in  Gen^ 
xxviii.  12,  13,  the  occasion  of  his  distress,  when  God  gave 
him  the  most  ample  promises.  His  version  is  this  :  " — by 
the  help  of  the  mighty  God,  whom  Jacob  worshipped,  by 
him  who  guarded  the  stone  of  Israel."  In  a  note  he  adds 
as  follows  :  "  It  appears  to  me  that  the  narrative  in  Gen. 
xxviii.  12,  13,  suggests  a  simple  and  natural  exposition  of 
this  verse.  At  a  time  when  Jacob  very  greatly  needed  the 
divine  assistance,  God  granted  him  most  ample  promises. 


CHAP,  xxivii.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  399 

while  asleep  with  a  stone  for  his  pillow.  Therefore,  says 
he,  the  same  God,  who  was  present  with  me  in  the  most 
dangerous  period  of  my  life,  hath  also  defended  thee  in  thy 
calamities.  Thus  he  explains  himself  in  the  next  verse." 
— Rosenmiiller,  who  gives  the  same  view  of  the  passage 
from  Teller's,  Not.  Crit.,  remarks,  that  there  is  considerable 
harshness  in  speaking  of  God  as  the  shepherd  or  defender  of 
a  stone.  He  supposes  Joseph  to  be  intended  by  these  ex- 
pressions, and  retains  the  reading  C'l"^,  which  he  interprets 
by,  '  from  that  time,'  which  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  very 
doubtful  meaning  of  the  word.  See  Note  15.  p.  179,  180. 
Inde  pascens  erat  et  lapis  Israelis  ;  '  from  the  time  that  he 
escaped  the  difficulties  which  had  oppressed  him,  he  sus- 
tained myself  and  family.'  Jacob  calls  his  son  '  the  shep- 
herd' of  Israel,  because  he  had  supplied  the  wants  of  his 
household  and  raised  them  to  affluence,  and  '  the  stone,'  be- 
cause he  had  been  their  prop  and  support.' — I  do  not  see 
any  more  harshness  in  representing  God  as  the  protector  of 
Jacob's  stone  than  there  is  in  speaking  of  him  as  the  "  keeper 
of  the  city."  Ps.  cxxvii.  1.  If  there  were,  it  would  be  re- 
moved by  the  expository  translation  of  Herder,  "  who 
watched  Israel  on  his  stone  :  Von  Namen  dess,  der  Israel 
auf  seinem  Stein  bewachte."  Letters  on  the  Study  of  The- 
ology, (Briefe,  &c.)  p.  76.  Amidst  so  much  uncertainty 
it  is  difficult  to  come  to  any  satisfactory  and  certain  result. 
In  the  version  above  oflered,  I  have  adopted  the  reading 
tD'ip,  retaining  its  common  translation  "  name,"  which  must 
be  considered  as  conveying  also  the  idea  of  power,  a  mean- 
ing which  is  undoubtedly  implied  in  the  word,  and  which 
corresponds  with  the  parallel  ''"i'^..  It  seems  most  probable, 
too,  from  the  use  of  the  preposition  "i"^  prefixed  to  both 
these  words,  in  connexion  with  the  parallelism  of  the  clauses, 
that  both  relate  to  the  same  object.     The  word  mI^I   is 


400  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [pArT  xI, 

beautifully  applied  to  God  as  the  patriarch's  kind  and  tender 
protector,  (see  Ps.  xxiii.  1.)  and  there  is  no  difficulty  in  con- 
sidering l^i*5  as  in  opposition  with  it,  and  expressive  of 
almighty  support,  in  which  sense  the  corresponding  term 
^^!2,  '  rock,'  is  often  employed. 

25.  'By  the  God  of  thy  father,  who  will  help  thee,  and  by 
the  Almighty,  who  will  bless  thee  with  blessings  of  heaven 
above,  blessings  of  the  deep  which  lieth  below,  blessings  of 
the  breasts  and  of  the  womb.' — Some  commentators  suppose 
an  ellipsis  immediately  after  the  words  "  who  will  bless 
thee, '  which  they  supply  with  '  be  thou  blessed,'  or  '  let  them 
come,'  as  may  suit  the  language  of  the  context.  But  if  the 
twenty-fourth  and  twenty-fifth  verses  be  connected,  as  in  the 
translation  of  the  analysis,  which  gives  to  the  preposition 
yip  before  '^'l''!'?,  Qll)  (D^,)  and  bJS:  the  same  general  mean- 
ing, and  making  the  three  nouns  relate  to  the  same  being, 
the  necessity  of  adding  any  thing  to  the  text  is  removed- 
In  Tj'lT^'^l  and  TjlD'^i"'!  the  vau  expresses  the  sense  of  ^tS^, 
who.  £int1  il^i^  diHiTl  is  rendered  by  Dathe  tej-rcc  ei 
(that  is,  coelo,)  suhjectcE.  But  QlniTl  does  not  appear  to  be 
used  in  this  sense.  The  common  phrase  for  'earth  below,* 
when  antithetic  to  '  heaven  above',  is  JlH?!!'?  3?T!S5.  See 
Exod.  XX.  4.  Deut.  iv.  39,  v.  8.  As  "  blessings  of  heaven 
above"  refers  to  seasonable  rains  and  copious  dews,  moist- 
ening and  fertilizing  the  ground,  and  preparing  it  to  yield 
plentiful  harvests,  so  it  would  seem  that  "  blessings  of  the 
deep  that  lieth  below,"  must  be  intended  to  express  fountains, 
lakes  and  streams  of  water,  which  promote  fertility  and 
conduce  to  the  agreeableness  and  advantages  of  a  country. 
The  last  clause  plainly  denotes  a  strong  and  numerous  poste- 
rity.    Compare  the  imprecatory  language  in  Hos.  ix.  14. 

26.  ri:>;i5  iii^^^iTi  ly  ^lin  iiDn^^-bi?  ^n;i5  ^^n^^  nbia 

:  Dbii'.     '  The  blessings  of  thy  father  exceed  the  blessings 


^ 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1—L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  401 

of  the  everlasting  mountains,  the  desirable  things  of  the 
eternal  hills.' — For  "illtl  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  has  "^1^, 
'  mountains,'  which  is  probably  the  true  reading,  or  else 
'''lin,  ^^'n  being  considered  as  an  old  form  of  lllj*  in  either 
case  ^5?  being  connected  with  it,  and  not  disjoined  as  in  the 
Rabbinical  text  by  the  Sakeph  katon.  This  appears  to  have 
been  the  reading  from  which  the  Septuagint  version  was 
made  :  u*s^  ivXoylas  o^sojv  laovifAwv,  xai  s*'  ivXaylaig  Sivwv  ctsvawv. 
It  is  supported  by  the  corresponding  word  ili'^ii  in  the 
parallel  hemistich,  and  the  meaning  thus  obtained,  which  I 
have  expressed  in  the  translation,  is  preferred  by  several 
modern  critics,  among  whom  may  be  found  the  names  of 
De  Wette,  Dathe  and  Gesenius.  This  reading  is  also  con- 
firmed by  the  parallel  place  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  15,  ffifiiilTa^ 
fibl5?  m'5?:?5  1573)21  t]1j5r^'n"]n»— «  ancient  mountains"— 
and   the   other  in   Hab.   iii.    6,    int|)   l^-^'n"!!!   li^^SJl^.l 

DblS?  SnlS'i'? — "  everlasting  mountains."  Rosenmiiller,  who 
prefers  retaining  the  usual  punctuation,  remarks,  that  "  al- 
though H"!!!  properly  means,  *  to  conceive,  to  be  pregnant,' 
yet,  like  ib'J^  it  is  used  indifferently  of  father  or  mother, 
so  that  tTlln  is  properly,  what  gives  conception,  father." 
But  he  produces  no  evidence  in  support  of  his  assertion,  and 
Dathe  states,  "  that  nitl  is  always  used  of  the  female, 
never  of  the  male,"  which  I  believe  is  true,  except  in  cases 
where  the  word  is  applied  figuratively.  Rosenmiiller  says 
indeed,  that,  although  the  data  by  which  the  other  view  is 
supported  are  specious,  the  result  to  which  it  leads  is  inele- 
gant and  far-fetched  ;  nor  is  it  easy  to  perceive,  why  eternity 
should  be   repeated,  that  is,  predicated  both  of  mountains 

*  Gesenius,  Geschichte  der  Heb.  Spr.  und  Schrift,  §  56.  p.  119,  and 
Lexicon  under  llH  1. 
51 


402  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  XI. 

and  hills.  To  prove  that  the  result  is  as  he  states,  would  be 
difficult ;  and  the  latter  remark  certainly  needs  no  reply,  as 
the  application  of  the  term  eternal  or  everlasting  to  the 
mountains  and  hills,  is  plainly  intended  to  increase  the  poetic 
effect,  and  to  make  the  parallelism  more  perfect. — The 
meaning  appears  to  be  this :  *  the  blessings  which  thy  father 
invokes  on  thee  are  superior  to  the  blessings,  (the  best  pro- 
ductions,) of  the  perpetual  mountains,  the  most  desirable 
gifts  of  the  eternal  hills  ;'  in  other  words,  they  are  the  most 
excellent  that  paternal  affection  can  pray  for. — The  other 
translation,  "the  blessings  of  thy  father  have  prevailed 
above  the  blessings  of  my  progenitors,"  conveys  a  sense 
which  is  not  very  probable.  The  patriarch  would  hardly  an- 
nounce the  magnificence  of  his  own  prophetic  benediction 
by  contrasting  it  with  those  of  his  venerated  ancestors,  nei- 
ther indeed  can  it  be  said,  in  reference  to  Joseph,  that  the 
blessings  promised  him  are  superior  to  those  which  had 
been  made  to  Jacob  himself,  (see  Gen.  xxvii.  2S,  29.  xxiii.  3, 
4,)  to  say  nothing  of  the  glorious  promises  both  of  a  tempo- 
ral and  spiritual  kind  which  God  had  given  to  Abraham. — 
If  the  word  nlS^iTl  be  derived  from  t^s^^^j  equivalent  to 
rilJTI,  *  to  mark  out,'  it  may  be  translated  '  bound,'  as  it  is  in 
our  EngUsh  version,  founded  on  some  ancient  Jewish  au- 
thorities ;  but  its  usual  meaning  is  '  delight,  desire,  object 
of  desire.' — There  is  no  difficulty  in  the  remainder  of  the 
verse,  unless  it  be  in  the  word  1''T5.  It  is  derived  from  '1T5, 
*  to  separate,  distinguish,'  namely,  for  excellencies  and  dig- 
nity. If,  with  many  late  critics,  we  consider  it  as  a  denomina- 
tive from  *iT!D'  '  a  crown,  a  diadem,^  it  will  be  equivalent  to, 
he  that  wears  the  crown,  in  other  words,  the  prince,  the  noblest 
among  his  brethren.  The  general  idea  is  the  same  as  that  just 
stated.  The  same  phrase  VH!^  "T^p  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  16,  is 
translated  in  the  Septuagint  version  ^o^atfSs/s  h  dosX^Ztg,  and  this 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  1— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  403 

is  the  meaning  which  is  given  here  by  the  Targum  of  Jona- 
than: "^^n^^  5><lp.^5  ^V'^l  s^.l^^;i  t)^5t25i  11  mni,  'who 

was  prince  and  ruler  in  Egypt,  and  distinguished  (Uterally 
shining,  splendid,)  by  honor  of  his  brethren,'  that  is,  by  the 
respect  which  his  brothers  paid  him.  See  Rosenmiiller  in 
loo.  The  same  idea  of  superior  dignity  is  conveyed  also  by 
the  Syriac  version,  \Lt^  ^^h  \  '  upon  the  head  of  the 
diadem,'  that  is,  the  head  of  him  who  was  honored  with  the 
diadem,  the  abstract  being  used,  most  probably,  for  the  con- 
crete. The  Septuagint,  in  making  Joseph  the  ruler  over  his 
brethren  agrees  in  this  meaning,  'wv  riyyidaro  a5sKcpi^\.* 

27.  '  Benjamin  is  a  wolf,  he  tears  in  pieces :  in  the 
morning  he  devours  the  prey,  and  at  evening  he  divides 
the  spoil.'  This  verse  describes  the  warlike  disposition  of 
the  tribe,  and  the  rapacity  with  which  they  would  spoil 
their  enemies.  Some  have  supposed  the  meaning  to  be, 
that  the  booty  obtained  would  be  so  immense  as  to  be 
sufficient  for  Benjamin's  consumption  not  only  in  the  morn- 
ing, but  through  the  whole  day,  even  until  the  evening,  and 
also  for  the  consumption  of  others.  Some  again  understand 
it  thus,  that  the  booty,  which  he  had  divided  at  evening, 
should  be  abundantly  sufficient  to  last  until  the  morning. 
See  Rosenmiiller  in  loc.  Probably,  however,  nothing  more 
is  intended  than  this,  that  both  morning  and  evening,  day 
and  night,  in  other  words,  at  all  times,  he  will  be  dividing 
the  booty  or  devouring  the  prey.  Rapacity  and  destruc- 
tiveness  could  scarcely  be  expressed  in  bolder  and  more 
graphical  poetry.    • 

*  It  may  not  be  unworthy  of  remark,  that  Schiller  in  some  of  his  tra- 
gedies uses  the  same  figure.  Thus,  in  his  William  Tell,  act  iii.  scene 
2,  Kudentz  says  to  Bertha  :  Da  seh'  ich  Dich,  die  Krone  aller  Frauen. 
And  in  the  Maid  of  Orleans,  act  i.  scene  4,  Charles  applies  the 
same  term  to  Agnes  Sorel. 


404  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  [part  xi. 

(165.)  This  is  doubtless  the  true  meaning  of  the  phrase 
']1")1'!'  ^5^5  in  this  place,  and  most  probably  it  should 
always  be  rendered  '  beyond,'  or  '  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Jordan,'  wherever  it  occurs ;  although  it  is  maintained  by 
some  commentators  and  critics,  that  it  means  *  on  this  or 
on  that  side  indifferently,'  and  in  our  English  translation  it 
is  sometimes  rendered  "  on  this  side,"  and  sometimes 
"  beyond  Jordan."  See  Hengstenberg's  examination  of 
this  phrase,  ubi  sup.  II.  p.  313 — 324. — The  cavalcade  that 
attended  the  remains  of  Jacob  was  probably  accompanied 
by  some  military  force,  to  protect  it  from  hostile  bands. 
See  V.  9.  Avoiding  a  march  into  Canaan  by  the  most 
direct  course,  perhaps  from  motives  of  a  prudential  kind, 
the  company  proceeded  along  its  southern  border  to  the 
eastern  extremity,  where,  after  the  second  mourning  was 
finished,  they  crossed  to  the  western  bank  of  the  Jordan, 
and,  unattended  probably  by  the  armed  force,  proceeded  to 
the  place  of  interment.  The  country  beyond  Jordan  is 
clearly  contradistinguished  from  "  the  land  of  Canaan"  in 
V.  13.  So  also  in  Num.  xxxii.  32:  "we- will  pass  over 
armed  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  that  the  possession  of  our 
inheritance  beyond  the  Jordan  may  be  ours ;"  that  is,  as  is 
proved  by  the  twenty-ninth  and  thirty-third  verses,  the 
country  lying  east  of  the  Jordan  :  and  xxxv.  14  :  "  ye  shall 
give  three  cities  beyond  the  Jordan,  and  three  cities  shall  ye 
give  in  the  land  of  Canaan."  In  these  two  last  places,  our 
translation  has  "  on  this  side  Jordan ;"  but  in  both,  the 
original  phrase  is  XT^i^  "^5?^-  In  Num.  xxxii.  19,  the 
use  of  the  term  is  very  remarkable.  The  Reubenites  and 
Gadites,  who  settled  on  the  east  of  Jordan,  say  to  Moses : 
*'  we  will  not  inherit  with  them,"  (the  other  tribes,)  "  beyond 
the  Jordan  and  forward,  'r\'^y\'\  I'^'l^H  "^^^^^  because 
our  inheritance  is  fallen  to  us  beyond  the  Jordan  eastward, 
nniT^  n^n^n  nn:?)^."     it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the 


CHAP.  XXXVII.  I— L.]  NOTES    TO    GENESIS.  40.5 

same  phrase  is  employed  in  opposite  senses  in  such  a  con- 
nexion, although  such  seems  to  have  been  the  opinion  of 
the  English  translator  of  the  book,  who,  in  the  former  case, 
renders  it  "  on  yonder  side,"  and  in  the  latter,  "  on  this 
side."  The  phrase  signifies  beyond  the  Jordan  in  both  cases, 
and  the  word  added  in  each  shows  the  reader  which  side  is 
meant.  The  opinion  of  Gesenius,  under  *15?»  !•  (Robin- 
son's Translation,  p.  734,)  that  "  this  expression  is  (some- 
times) applied  to  the  country  west  of  the  Jordan,  hy  a  later 
idiom,  it  would  seem,  which  probably  arose  during  the 
Babylonian  exile,"  is  unfounded  in  fact  and  not  necessary 
to  illustrate  the  texts.  The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  the 
phrase  had  a  definite,  geographical  sense,  designating  the 
country  lying  east  of  the  Jordan,  similar  to  the  use  of 
^rawsalpine  Gaul  among  the  Romans  ;  and  was  also  used  to 
denote  the  region  on  the  side  of  the  river  opposite  to  that 
occupied  by  the  writer,  or  the  possession  of  which  he  re- 
garded at  the  time  of  writing  as  having  been  already 
entirely  secured  by  conquest.  If  so,  the  word  will  always 
retain  one  uniform  meaning,  although  it  may  be  employed, 
according  to  circumstances,  to  designate  the  territory  lying 
on  either  side  of  the  river. 


FINIS 


J.  p.  Wright,  Printer,  18  New  Street,  New  York. 


16711TC  IXn 

08-07-03  32180      MS     W 


Princeton  Theoloqical ,  Sfnimary  Librah^^ 


1    1012  01276  7358 


